  Dougw Member Username: Dougw Post Number: 1664 Registered: 11-2003 |
http://crainsdetroit.com/apps/ pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070507 /SUB/70504039/-1/TOC (scroll down for 2nd editorial) Crain's Detroit Editorial, 6:00 am, May 7, 2007 quote: | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 3159 Registered: 10-2004 |
The UAW lately has been concentrating their membership efforts in unionizing teaching assistants at colleges and such. By the time of the new contracts, those remaining UAW members (still working) will have a minimal effect on the major automakers. Their retired ranks will far outnumber their currently working members. The Tiers are getting more and more of two-level UAW members, where new workers make less than half of the older UAW members. Expect most of the UAW worker pay to come in at around $15/hr with few benefits. The UAW isn't anywhere near the driver's seat, and few Americans care or should care about that. They have employment problems of their own in a booming US economy. | ||
Jerome81 Member Username: Jerome81 Post Number: 1419 Registered: 11-2003 |
DUH. The jobs bank should have gone before it even got going. What kind of hair-brained agreement was that? The UAW must have been laughing so hard when the Big 3 agreed to that one. | ||
Zephyrprocess Member Username: Zephyrprocess Post Number: 370 Registered: 08-2006 |
Would such a policy also preclude/discourage consulting firms such as Compuware from keeping staff "on the bench"? | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 9069 Registered: 10-2003 |
I don't know how the legislation will work but I see a difference between 'the bench' and jobs banks. Jobs banks are used at plants that are being idled or shutdown. The bench is when someone is between contracts with compuware customers. The primary difference is that Compuware has a short bench time and will pay for that person because, if another job comes up they will be able to staff it quickly and the person's short time on the bench will still be financially justified. the jobs bank may have situations like that but they also have many situation when a plant/shift is being shut down and their is no potential customer in the wings that can use the employees services. One is a safety net for workers and a huge burden on a company, the other is to the companies benefit due to time to bring on and train new staff. The time allowed is also very different. | ||
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo Post Number: 91 Registered: 02-2007 |
The auto-groups need to grow some ball-bearings and tell the unions to take a hike. The workers have had no issues with striking them, they should give it right back. Lock them out and hire the many folks unemployed to replace them. Ridiculous? Of course it is, but thats partially what its going to take to keep themselves solvent. A lot of companies operate with no unions. Good ol Toyota and Nissan to name a few. A business, large or small must take drastic measures to survive sometimes.. Sales go sour and they have to dole out billions of dollars on top of it for the same folks to leave that help put them there, total bullshit. A worse business model could not be imagined. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 3165 Registered: 10-2004 |
Don't lose sight of the average cost to the automakers of retaining just one typical jobs banker: $135,000 each in 2005 dollars. | ||
6nois Member Username: 6nois Post Number: 211 Registered: 11-2006 |
As I see it the problem isn't the current employees, the retired employees are the ones who are killing the motor companies. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 3166 Registered: 10-2004 |
One reason for the difficulty in selling off Chrysler is that short of DCX's filing for bankruptcy or choosing to retain Chrysler's liabilities (a super-dumb move), Chrysler will have to be sold off in its entirety--both its assets and its liabilities, with legacy costs far outweighing the value of many of Chrysler's assets. That why a sale probably will bring in short of $5 billion, yet Daimler paid many times that figure nine years ago. (Message edited by Livernoisyard on May 08, 2007) | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 826 Registered: 12-2005 |
quote: The jobs bank began in the early 1980's before their big slide in market share began. It's original purpose was to "protect" those workers whose jobs had been eliminated by automation. Minimum employment levels were in effect established at each plant and engineers were able to then implement large scale automation projects without union objections, since the plan was for the displaced worker to enter the "jobs bank" until such time that normal attrition opened up a regular job for them. The concept of the "jobs bank" turned around and bit the manufacturers in the a** when market share losses caused them to have to "idle" whole shifts or entire plants and put them into the "bank". The "jobs bank" in effect has turned the Big 3's employment costs into a fixed cost whereas the transplant auto manufacturer's labor costs remain a variable cost. quote: GM's pension plans are fully funded, it is their retiree (and current employee) health care costs that are the big burden. | ||
Dougw Member Username: Dougw Post Number: 1665 Registered: 11-2003 |
Interesting article about GM's pension fund... good to hear they are doing something right. | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 831 Registered: 12-2005 |
More things that GM is doing right:
|
