  Cookin64 Member Username: Cookin64 Post Number: 7 Registered: 07-2008 |
What people fail to mention is that a lot of the so called transplant companies do not have retirees for one, 2) they send their money overseas and help build that economy up while america suffers, 3) the whole import export thing is really fucked up! Why is it they can import all of their cars over here and tell the government that we can only import a limited number? Can some one on this forum help me figure this out? but in the same token theycome to america and copy what we build and or sell and take it over seas and make their own version of it and send it back over here in chinese written boxes and sell it off for a few dollars! But when the recalls and everything hits the fan we Union people are the blame! Or the quality that is coming out of us factories is Shit!!! When we get all of the chinese supplier stuff!!! And guess what?? The UAW is to blame for Managements poor choice in who they pick for suppliers! Cheap sweatshop parts! And the people who make these parts are protected by our government to stop me and you from suing them!!! In the same token! Blame US the average worker who puts the shit together!!!! | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4049 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Again, which figure do you use? The $30/hour that Toyota workers make in Kentucky? Or the $15/hour that BMW workers make in South Carolina? Or whatever Mercedes pays people in Alabama? | ||
Detx Member Username: Detx Post Number: 209 Registered: 07-2007 |
Fuck you Senate, pay me. - Sincerly, UAW | ||
Pffft Member Username: Pffft Post Number: 1165 Registered: 12-2003 |
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. The Foghorn Leghorn bunch wanted them to go after the retirees and gut their pensions and healthcare, and instantly cut the pay of workers who currently get more than $16 an hour, right now. I can't fathom how you think this is reasonable, and not just by the book Southern union busting. | ||
Sparty06 Member Username: Sparty06 Post Number: 146 Registered: 03-2007 |
Danindc, What you use (and what was proposed) was the average wage overall for the competitors similar auto-workers. It really isn't that hard to figure out for all the bright people who were working on this. For example, GM could still pay workers different wages but their "average" wage would have to be equal to the "average" wage of their competitors. Furthermore, you would probably look at similar jobs (so an unskilled worker wouldn't make the same pay as a skilled worker for example). I really don't think that's such a huge thing to ask. Finally, sure this would take a little figuring out but the UAW could agree to it in principle (simply agreeing to competitive wages) and then haggle over the small differences later. | ||
Pffft Member Username: Pffft Post Number: 1166 Registered: 12-2003 |
But why the focus on ONLY the unionized workforce? Nothing about compensation for middle management or top management. Does GM pay its middle managers more, or less, than Toyota? Why does nobody in the GOP care about this? One guess. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4050 Registered: 10-2003 |
Well, here it is, plain and simple, courtesy of Sen. Jim DeMint (R-Obviously): http://www.npr.org/templates/s tory/story.php?storyId=9809843 6 Among the highlights: quote: quote: In other words, anything more than what the BMW workers in good ole South Carolina get is just excessive, and we can't have American workers making a good living by manufacturing a good product, can we? | ||
Sparty06 Member Username: Sparty06 Post Number: 147 Registered: 03-2007 |
Pfft, Good point. Focusing only on the UAW was a stupid ploy by the Republican Senators. However, this doesn't negate the fact that the UAW still chose to see the Big 3 die rather than accept a unilateral pay cut. That is selfish behavior. As I said before, if the same situation happened but only management was being asked to take a unilateral pay-cut (and assuming they didn't take the cut). I would also say that this was a selfish move by management to put their own interests ahead of the entire company's. (Message edited by sparty06 on December 12, 2008) | ||
Daddeeo Member Username: Daddeeo Post Number: 333 Registered: 09-2008 |
Let's have everyone making minimum wages. How come the big finance geniuses weren't racked over the coals and asked to take a pay cut? What sort of plan were they asked to follow? Where was Senator Foghorn then? Bunch of hypocrites. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4052 Registered: 10-2003 |
See, the real problem is that the State of Michigan was never stupid enough to shell out $200,000 per $30,000/year automobile job, like Alabama and South Carolina did. | ||
Angry_dad Member Username: Angry_dad Post Number: 283 Registered: 02-2006 |
Bottom line is the southern republicans want to poison the well as Obama takes office. Too bad they have so little regard for the nation. They are republicans before being Americans. No wonder the world laughs at us. These guys give them great cause. | ||
Gazhekwe Member Username: Gazhekwe Post Number: 2728 Registered: 08-2007 |
The point you are missing in all this is that the UAW was asked to take ANOTHER pay cut on top of the ones they have already taken and agreed to, by a date to be determined by the so-call car czar, who could still then determine it was not enough and demand bankruptcy. Forgot to add this: If the UAW worked for NOTHING it still would not be enough to save the companies. The hourly workers' pay is not the biggest part of their problem. (Message edited by gazhekwe on December 12, 2008) | ||
Townonenorth Member Username: Townonenorth Post Number: 453 Registered: 10-2007 |
Senator Foghorn (among others) make 77 dollars an hour +benefits and a full retirement at 50 with 20 years of service. That's not factoring in the retirees currently drawing a pension. I wonder what their labor costs are factoring in their retirees and benifits? Yet they bitch about 30 and out? Their pensions are at 80% of their last years salary. they currently make $169,300 a year, plus all the donations they can snag. | ||
Sparty06 Member Username: Sparty06 Post Number: 148 Registered: 03-2007 |
Gazhekwe, True if they agreed to work for nothing it still wouldn't save the companies, we agree on that. However, if they agreed to work for wages on par with their competitors THEY WOULD'VE GOTTEN THE BRIDGE LOANS! Also, while they have already taken pay cuts it's pretty much a consensus opinion by non-interested parties that their wages are still higher than their competitor wages. Again, I'm not trying to union bash or say that they are the reason that we're in this mess in the first place. I'm just saying their selfishness caused the Bridge Loans to be denied by the Senate. Additionally, I'm not making a normative argument about what kind of world we want to live in (i.e., maybe it's true that we will all be worse off if we turn these middle class jobs into lower class jobs). All I'm doing is making a simple statement that I think the UAW refusing to accept wages on par with their rivals at a date of their choosing in 2009 is the direct reason the auto-companies may die (because they won't get the bridge loans). This doesn't mean that I think the GOP was right to require this concession nor does it mean I think that the concession means a better America by eliminating middle class jobs. It's just a simple statement about a very narrow issue.... the direct evidence that had they accepted pay on par with their rivals in 2009 the Bridge Loans would've passed. Remember Corker saying we were "3 words" away from an agreement? | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 946 Registered: 07-2007 |
"However, if they agreed to work for wages on par with their competitors THEY WOULD'VE GOTTEN THE BRIDGE LOANS!" Sparty06, quit being a stooge for the Dixiecons. Corker's so-called "deal" was BS. He couldn't must support in his own caucus for the first "deal" he negotiated and when he came back for more, the UAW got wise and realized that the goal wasn't about passing a deal, it was about making the UAW look bad. If you really believe Corker's claim and that there was support for the loans IF the UAW had agreed to even more concessions, name the names. Who were the Republican senators ready to vote for it if the UAW had conceded? | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 5010 Registered: 06-2004 |
The real kicker is that the foreigns don't pay uniformly across their plants. The Toyota plant in Georgetown, after bonuses were doled out, averaged higher than UAW rates last year. Gettelfinger wanted to see the foreign's numbers if the Reps were going to insist on parity instead of just bowing to whatever number the Reps threw out there. | ||
Sparty06 Member Username: Sparty06 Post Number: 149 Registered: 03-2007 |
Lilpup, That's fine... and it bolsters my point. It may have even helped the UAW to agree to wage parity! The UAW could have agreed to wage parity in principle and then haggled over these smaller details later on. | ||
Angry_dad Member Username: Angry_dad Post Number: 284 Registered: 02-2006 |
The UAW is suppposed to "cut a deal" for a loan for corporations that they really don't own. Senator Corker is a moron. The republican party wants to negotiate labor contracts? Who gave them the authority? Sorry, this is pure politics. They were going to find one point someplace, somewhere then lay the bullshit on the nation. The role of government in markets is to provide a fair market. This government is a complete failure in that regard. | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 947 Registered: 07-2007 |
Proof that Corker was talking out his back side. He was quoted today saying this: But Corker said Friday that "for all I know, [Senate Republicans] would have been happy with 2010." http://money.cnn.com/news/news feeds/articles/djf500/20081212 1333DOWJONESDJONLINE000900_FOR TUNE5.htm You know what that means? It means Corker's full of it. If he was actually negotiating for the caucus, he would know exactly what date would have been acceptable to get 60 votes. Again, name names of the Republicans who would have supported the deal. Can you name anyone besides Corker who has said they would have voted "yes" if the UAW had caved? One name? | ||
Sparty06 Member Username: Sparty06 Post Number: 150 Registered: 03-2007 |
Novine, That's an interesting find and changes the debate a little bit. I still find it remarkable that the UAW refused to accept wage parity with their competitors though. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4053 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: AGAIN. Which numbers do you use??? Only an idiot makes ambiguous agreements. Should U.S. automakers not be allowed to pay better and provide better benefits as part of a competitive strategy? Maybe we should also mandate they hire people with the same level of education and work experience as the Southern auto plants as well. Do we need to let Southern Republican Senators write the entire business plan before deciding to save American manufacturing? Or do we let the automakers live long enough to figure out their own plans without ideological career attorneys trying to play businessman for a place where they resent the predominant work culture? (Message edited by DaninDC on December 13, 2008) | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 5011 Registered: 06-2004 |
heh, maybe they should demand wage parity between bank CEOs and employees in New York and bank CEOs and employees in the rest of the country | ||
Sparty06 Member Username: Sparty06 Post Number: 151 Registered: 03-2007 |
Lilpup, Yes maybe they should but the future of the Big 3 didn't rely on parity between CEOs.... because of political reasons it relied on UAW wage parity. And the UAW decided it was better to let the Big 3 die than accept wage parity with their competitors. And Danindc, just because there isn't one clear number for foreign wages doesn't mean that a smart group of economists can't sit down and figure out a number. And for the record, I agree that Republican or Democrat Senators shouldn't dictate the terms of business to a private company like GM. But that's what happened here and again, the UAW chose to let the Big 3 die rather than let a Senator dictate their wages. Seems selfish. My guess is if the Dems had demanded CEO wage parity and Wagoner and Nardelli refused you wouldn't be on this forum giving all sorts of excuses about how "it isn't fair" and "what number for CEO compensation" should you use. | ||
Sparty06 Member Username: Sparty06 Post Number: 152 Registered: 03-2007 |
http://online.wsj.com/article/ SB122912631328803145.html?mod= googlenews_wsj In the Senate's Thursday night automobile showdown, the United Auto Workers said "No thanks" to a bailout with strings attached. Most Senate Republicans took them at their word and voted to block the bill. But within hours, President Bush blinked and Treasury is now scrambling to use money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. Who'd have thought Mr. Bush would want to join the long line of Detroit executives in caving to the UAW? Senate Republicans had more gumption. Led by Tennessee Senator Bob Corker, they asked the auto workers to show they were serious about making Detroit competitive again. In exchange for a lifeline from Washington, Mr. Corker wanted the union to set a "date certain" in 2009 for lowering the Detroit Three's hourly labor costs to the average of foreign-owned auto makers in the U.S. He also wanted creditors to bring down Detroit's total debt by two-thirds through an equity swap, making sure debtholders share the cost of restructuring. The union's counteroffer was that it would bring down labor costs in 2011, when its current contracts run out. Maybe we missed something, but we thought GM and Chrysler were facing bankruptcy now, not in three years. As Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said on the Senate floor, that sounds like "taxpayer money today for reforms that may or may not come tomorrow." | ||
Ronaldj Member Username: Ronaldj Post Number: 75 Registered: 01-2007 |
Another point to consider is that the UAW has historically negotiated under the "collective bargaining" concept. Union vs Manufacturer. Not Union vs Government/Individual Senator. I may be wrong, but a Ford worker may not be paid equally to a GM or Chhrysler employee. Time lines for product and production schedules at the automotives can stretch as far as 10 years. The lawyers in Congress do not seem able to ever see past the next election cycle. They do not manufacture anything beside chaos. Random thought. Late evening. | ||
Sparty06 Member Username: Sparty06 Post Number: 153 Registered: 03-2007 |
Good point Ronaldj, that's why it was absolutely wrong for those Senators to think they could run the company and decide how it deals with labor. But that still doesn't take away from the fact that labor decided to balk at their demands rather than make a unilateral sacrifice to try and save the company. | ||
Bobl Member Username: Bobl Post Number: 264 Registered: 07-2008 |
McConnell, Shelby and Corker simply tried to leave a poison well, as Angry_dad stated. Gotta give the republicans credit for their disingenuous behavior. It never stops. "Joe the Plumber" is neither Joe nor a plumber. Sarah Palin lobbies for the bridge to nowhere, then takes credit for saying "no, thanks", after keeping the money. "Country First" means filibuster every time they do not get their way. No need to even address their "fiscal responsibility". It's all good, though. They told us numerous times that the fundamentals of the economy are strong. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 3891 Registered: 10-2003 |
They weren't trying to fix the industry, rather they were trying to humiliate the workers, and now it may turn out that their own failure-of-a-president will offer the autos the money they need with nowhere near the attachments. They were trying to essentially trying to rewrite a contract that they have no jurisdiction over, by trying to make the workers do it for them. If they don't like the work rules, then they should have simply voted against it. But, they played games by making the other half of the coalition believe they had formed a deal, and then springing this right before the vote? All the damned gall of these blowhards. You don't play those petty political games when the well being of millions of families are hanging in the balance, and you sure as hell don't do it in an astoundingly shadey way, like that. It'd be different if folks like Corker and Shelby were upfront about their intentions, but they aren't. They aren't honest brokers by any stretch of the imagination. You can't make a deal with a dirty dealer. Let's entertain, for a minute, that the UAW isn't the "good guy" in this. If they aren't, than country-fried likes of Shelby and Corker sure as hell aren't the good guys. | ||
Sparty06 Member Username: Sparty06 Post Number: 154 Registered: 03-2007 |
Normally not a big fan of this mag but I do like Larry Kudlow. Good piece by him below on what went down in the UAW negotiations and whose to blame. http://article.nationalreview. com/?q=NmFiMWFiNjk3NjRlNzc0YmZ lMWI2Yzc1NDU5MmI1ZTY= If Sen. Corker’s plan had prevailed, with UAW support, many believe it would have had 90 votes in the Senate. GM could have gone forward with a clean-as-a-whistle balance sheet under a three-part restructuring plan that included a $60 billion bond-refinancing cram-down, a renegotiation of the $30 billion VEBA health-care trust, and a pay-restructuring plan that would put Detroit compensation levels in line with those of foreign transplants Honda, Toyota, Nissan, and BMW. Average compensation for the Detroit little three is $72.31. Toyota’s average wage is $47.60, Honda’s is $42.05, and Nissan’s is $41.97, for an average of $44.20. So Corker’s idea was to bring that $72 a lot closer to that $44. (Corker notably knocked out Korean carmaker Kia, which has super-low wages.) Corker’s plan also was constructed in true compromise fashion. Among the negotiators were reps from GM, Chrysler, and Ford, and bondholders like fixed-income giant PIMCO. Critically, UAW representatives also were in the negotiating room, with an open line to Gettelfinger back home. During the negotiations Corker tried to be as compromising as possible on the tough question of wages, benefits, and overall compensation. He asked the union to be competitive, but he never specified parity or complete equality with the foreign transplants. And Corker provided that the comp-package would be certified next year by the secretary of Labor — an Obama selection. In addition, the Senate governing the package would be made up of 58 Democrats, rather than today’s 50. All Corker asked was a 2009 date for union pay restructuring. Sen. Corker never specified his date. He asked the UAW to name its date for a new pay package. But it had to be in 2009. | ||
Sumas Member Username: Sumas Post Number: 421 Registered: 01-2008 |
It is all clear to me now. The Civil War never really ended. The UAW should not call themselves a Union, rather they should call themselves a Confederation of Workers. |
