Does Anyone feel like Bailing

[classicman]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Many benefits? Vacations? Sick days? Pensions? 40 hour work week? If it weren't for the UAW, nobody would get those things. We'd still be working six long days, then going to the poor farm when we couldn't keep up with the younger ones, or if we could, work till we died.

Dunno about all that. I'm not willing to take the leap. I work well more than 40 hrs a week as does LJ and I'm sure a few others here just as examples. No I don't get any additional compensation either. Just the priviledge of keeping my job.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Negotiated is the key word.

That is the real crux of my point. These/those companies cannot afford to cover this stuff, be it a very generous retirement plan length or med benefits fully paid or the ridiculous bonuses they pay out. It is/has been a failed plan and has to change.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

The best benefit they have is the medical insurance, making sure they can get medical care for the family members that need it, although that has limits too. What's different from most, is that in retirement they have insurance to supplement their Medicare. I'd like to see everyone get that.

Me too, but its simply too costly.

I have to pay for my family/dependents insurance - my employer only covers me. Is that out of the ordinary? How bout you?

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Negotiated is the key word. These benefits were all agreed to, often proposed by, the auto companies. They were all supposed to be funded as they accrued, but the companies didn't do that. They took that money and boasted of big profits, justifying big bonuses/perks for bean counters... those evil MBAs.

Completely irresponsible to blame employees when top management was reaping 34% and 67% annual income increases. Even reaping large bonuses when the company was losing money. Before anyone can blame the unions, first, it starts with top management.

Meanwhile, very little cost of a car is found in labor. The massive majority in a car's cost are in its design. The fools say GM must control costs. Those who come from reality say GM must innovate. Cost controls don't reduce costs. Only innovation reduces costs. Ie 1979 Chrysler and 1981 Ford. Where are costs highest? Where GM has been stifling innovation - ie robots to deliver parts to assembly lines. Not in labor costs.

New proposals would decrease labor costs from $28 per hour to $24. Numbers wildly different from those hyped in myths.

Rick Wagoner said GM has no problems with it products and assembly plants. Rick Wagoner said GM's entire problem is only due to the economy. Denial is alive and well. Did unions also create that problem?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by tw

very little cost of a car is found in labor. The massive majority in a car's cost are in its design.
Only innovation reduces costs.

Perhaps you could provide a pie chart showing the costs of a vehicle broken down.

I don't think I'm reading what you're writing....
there is no way that they can "innovate" immediately - or is there?

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

Perhaps you could provide a pie chart showing the costs of a vehicle broken down.

I don't think I'm reading what you're writing....
there is no way that they can "innovate" immediately - or is there?

The numbers were provided many times previously including number of man-hours in each car. One is expected to read those posts and grasp those numbers.

How did Iacocca turn Chrysler from record losses to repaying all bank loans (there were no government loans) in only four years? He started innovating immediately. Those stories have also been posted numerous times repeatedly. Why did Chrysler have record profits in only four years? Innovation typically takes four to ten years to appear on a spread sheet. Rather obvious is when innovation started.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by classicman

Dunno about all that. I'm not willing to take the leap. I work well more than 40 hrs a week as does LJ and I'm sure a few others here just as examples. No I don't get any additional compensation either. Just the priviledge of keeping my job.

40 hours has been the standard industrial work week since it was championed by the UAW.
Non-industrial trades like construction, fishing, logging, etc, that are seasonally restricted, will vary.
Retail sales and the like are not comparable.
Jobs where you're not being productive all the time, but require being available, are generally longer hours.
I don't know what you do, but how much time does LJ spend waiting for the salesman to close the deal so he can go to work?

That is the real crux of my point. These/those companies cannot afford to cover this stuff, be it a very generous retirement plan length or med benefits fully paid or the ridiculous bonuses they pay out. It is/has been a failed plan and has to change.

It's only a failed plan because the companies failed to remain competitive, not because of their labor costs, but because of poor management. If the Big Three had followed the Jap car makers in their production methods, labor costs would be a moot point.

I have to pay for my family/dependents insurance - my employer only covers me. Is that out of the ordinary? How bout you?

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

That's been the policy at every company I or my husband have ever worked for.

When I worked for Tufts University and a small company, we had to pay for dependents coverage, but every large corporation has paid for both, until a few years ago. Now we have to contribute to both our own and dependents coverage.
Medical costs have skyrocketed since they paid Brianna all that money.

He also works a lot more than 40 hours a week.

I thought he was self-employed?

[tw]

From the Washington Post of 24 Dec 2008:

SEC Chief Defends His Restraint
Christopher Cox, the embattled chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, is defending his restrained approach to the financial crisis, saying he has provided steady leadership as Wall Street's main regulator at a time when other federal regulators have responded precipitously to upheaval in the markets.

During his tenure, the SEC has watched as all the investment banks it oversaw collapsed, were swallowed up or got out of their traditional line of business. The agency, meanwhile, was on the sidelines while the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve worked to bail out the financial sector. And the SEC, by its own admission, failed to detect an alleged $50 billion fraud by Bernard L. Madoff that may be the largest Ponzi scheme in history.

But in his first interview since the Madoff scandal broke, Cox said he was not responsible for the agency's failure to detect the alleged fraud and that he had responded properly to the broader financial crisis given the information he had. Confronted with a barrage of criticism from lawmakers, former officials and even some of his staff, Cox said he took pride in his measured response to the market turmoil.

Just like other George Jr SEC Chairmen, he is proud that he did nothing to avert the meltdown. Harvey Pitts even refuse to accept a doubling of his budget after Enron. Deregulation is alive and well in an industry that most be most highly regulated do to the people who work in that industry - stock brokers. Cox is proud that he did nothing. Sounds like Karl Rove propaganda is still alive and well in the George Jr adminstration. Deny that a problem exists, let Rush Limbaugh tell the wacko extremists, and people will believe it.

How many corporate executives are currently being prosecuted by the SEC for their Enron style accounting? Zero?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by classicman

I understand that Bruce, but that still doesn't explain the many benefits and very generous retirement packages that that negotiated.
Also, Why does it take months for a "retool" at their plants when the foreign ones can do it in hours or days?
It just seems to me that a lot of these things are what is wrong with them. Its not just one thing, its many things that add up to an insane, unmanageable business plan.

When unions can get companies to pay 80 or 90% of a workers pay after he stops working the unions are no longer useful.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

When unions can get companies to pay 80 or 90% of a workers pay after he stops working the unions are no longer useful.

Evidently you didn't read my post explaining that doesn't happen.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Evidently you didn't read my post explaining that doesn't happen.

Really?


http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosins...A01-351179.htm

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5185887

http://wsjclassroom.com/archive/06ma...2_jobsbank.htm

[xoxoxoBruce]

Oh, ok. I thought you were talking about the sub-pay program.
I agree thats a bad system, I never understood why they bought that in the first place. But shouldn't the union ask for programs to benefit the people that are paying them, remember the company just has to say no.

Boeing has a small version of that, something like 60 or 70 people, that are held to fill in with experienced people if a department is suddenly shorthanded. The difference is when they are not needed to fill in, they are janitors cleaning the bathrooms and offices.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

[explanation]

Unfortunately, the general public just gets the sound-bite that auto workers get 95% of their pay when they're laid off.

Originally Posted by classicman

I understand that Bruce, but that still doesn't explain the many benefits and very generous retirement packages that that negotiated.

Well, of course the explanation for one benefit doesn't explain all of the others. I would think that each one has its own explanation, many of which would be just as good.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by classicman

I have to pay for my family/dependents insurance - my employer only covers me. Is that out of the ordinary? How bout you?

That's been the policy at every company I or my husband have ever worked for. He also works a lot more than 40 hours a week.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I thought he was self-employed?

Nope, he's a Systems Admin for a major website. But like you pointed out, some of his hours are just being available in case servers go down, and a lot more are being productive but from the computer at home.

[Undertoad]

Noticed in NYT story this morning saying it's the end of the line for SUVs:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/24/bu...er=rss&emc=rss

More than 1,000 workers were laid off at the Moraine plant. Under terms of the U.A.W. contract for all its members, they and the workers in Janesville and Newark will collect unemployment checks and payments from G.M. that together equal about 80 percent of their take-home pay.

For a YEAR. What an amazing deal.

Of course, in a market, everything is connected. The other side here is that GM is motivated to close the plant *sooner*, so they don't have to pay for nothing for too long. With gas prices dropping like a rock, perhaps there is life for the line after all. But GM can't risk it.

There is always the other side to these deals. The union negotiates a higher salary and greater benefits. The company must then lay people off wholesale, when the tough times come, instead of keeping more people and saving money on salary and benefits.

Still, GM had their chance to build a car in a non-union state, from scratch, with non-union North American labor just like the Japanese companies... and they built Saturn. Were we supposed to be impressed?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

How did Iacocca turn Chrysler from record losses to repaying all bank loans (there were no government loans) in only four years? He started innovating immediately.

Actually, by the time Chrysler asked the government to insure those bank loans, they had already started innovating and were ready to go into production with the K car. Remember they showed one to Congress, to prove they had a viable business plan deserving of government support.
Quite unlike the asshats that appeared before Congress recently.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

For a YEAR. What an amazing deal.

That deal was negotiated when GM was bragging about the bazzillions of dollars they were making to the Wall Street analysts.

Of course, in a market, everything is connected. The other side here is that GM is motivated to close the plant *sooner*, so they don't have to pay for nothing for too long. With gas prices dropping like a rock, perhaps there is life for the line after all. But GM can't risk it.

It's a pretty safe bet that gas prices will rebound. I figure they will settle out around $3 a gallon.

There is always the other side to these deals. The union negotiates a higher salary and greater benefits. The company must then lay people off wholesale, when the tough times come, instead of keeping more people and saving money on salary and benefits.

Historically GM, and the rest, lay off/recall production line workers as needed. They have never shown any loyalty to their workers, which is why in good times the UAW has pushed for benefits like the "job bank" and sub-pay.

[caution, opinion ahead]
I think the UAW leadership is just as out of touch as the board of directors. They've seen many boom/bust cycles over the years and figure this is just another one, instead of realizing that the world and market are (have been) going through profound changes.

Probably it's that "just another one" mentality making the union leadership reticent to make any concessions, thinking the business will rebound and it would take years, if not decades, to regain those hard won benefits.

I applaud the UAW for the precedent setting strides they've made in workplace safety and a fair share of profits for the workers. I'm sure the non-union auto plants, as well as other industries, would not be as fair to their workers if it were not for that precedent.

But that said, I don't think the present leadership is doing the right thing. I fear the future without unions would lead to an even bigger have/havenot gap in this country. Rather than throwing out the baby with the bath water, I'd like to see more responsible leadership. The fly in the ointment is the union leadership is elected by the members, and voters being voters, as we've seen in politics, vote for the candidate promising the most.
[end opinion]