Saving the US Auto Industry

[classicman]

Originally Posted by glatt

Yes, there are lots of perks. But those perks don't pay the bills until after they leave congress. They make about the same as a junior level lawyer at a big firm, but have to maintain two residences.

I'd like to see who is paying for that 2nd residence too and all the travel time between them.

Originally Posted by glatt

I've got a much bigger problem with CEO salaries that are hundreds or thousands of time greater than the national average than I have with these guys who make three or four times the national average.

That doesn't let these guys off the hook though. Granted the CEO's are making way too much as well, but for congress to take a raise while asking others to tighten up and sacrifice "for he good of all" is sickening.

[Shawnee123]

I vehemently disagree. See previous post.

[xoxoxoBruce]

We have the same thing going on at the state level, in PA. The state congressmen that didn't want to accept the raise were told they had to take it by law. A couple stated they would give it to charity.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by classicman

I'd like to see who is paying for that 2nd residence too and all the travel time between them.

They pay for the 2nd residence, and the taxpayer pays for the travel.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by glatt

They 're supposed to pay for the 2nd residence, and the taxpayer pays for the travel.

Fixed that for ya.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by classicman

That doesn't let these guys off the hook though. Granted the CEO's are making way too much as well, but for congress to take a raise while asking others to tighten up and sacrifice "for he good of all" is sickening.

Considering the job they have done so far I must agree. They shouldn't get another damm dime.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Considering the job they have done so far I must agree. They shouldn't get another damm dime.

We just had an election. That was the chance to keep them from getting another damn dime. If they were asked to serve another term by the people, they deserve to be paid for their work.

[TheMercenary]

Absolutely. They deserve to be paid for their work. Not paid more. Not when the rest of the country is bleeding.

[Pico and ME]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

I will go along with that once a worker on a GM assembly line agrees to give up some of their 70 bucks an hour as a small sacrifice for saving their own jobs and livelihood. That's approximately 145 grand a year some of them make for the responsibility of putting a nut on a bolt. And in the grand scheme, aren't the wages of lower and higher level workers at GM, the subsequent failed business model, the domino effect of all the related businesses failing a huge part of our financial crisis in the first place?

Public service perhaps shouldn't make a billion dollars an hour, but the wages shouldn't be so low as to preclude anyone from ever even considering it as a viable employment option. As it is, the responsibilities they have are not really in line with what high level executives are paid. Small sacrifice for the greater good.

Exactly what selfish GM should do. Given the choice of sacrificing a bit (and still making a wage most of us will never ever see, even those of us in professional positions) or just letting the whole thing fall apart resulting in much worse economic conditions, the choice seems to be "fuck it...let it fall apart. I won't give up NUTTIN'."

I find this attitude puke-worthy.

You are seriously misinformed here Shawnee. The average hourly wage for an Autoworker is more like $28/hr and it only encompasses about 10% of the companies total expenses. Starting pay is actually $12 -13/hr, which is a result of the latest concessions given to the companies from the union.

The $70/hr is a total package the companies put together to represent hourly wage, overtime (which there has been little to none in the last year), vacation and health benefits, and pension and health benefits for retirees...which by the way is the main drain. The Jap companies do not have the same problem because they haven't been in business here for decades and so do not have the same retirees to deal with.

Blaming the union autoworkers for this downfall is just wrong and is really the result of the anti-union campaign that the companies have been working on and spending millions on for years now.

My husband has been a union auto worker for 12 years. We are not living high off the hog and nowhere near it. Also, he had to have neck surgery due to two herniated disks that immobilized his right arm. This injury was more than likely caused by the job...the stress of repetition is pretty hard on the body. Our doctor said that he sees most of this back and neck injuries from the autoworkers. Tell me Shawnee, is $60,000 a year worth it to you if it means your are going to suffer pain and disability for the rest of your retirement years as a result?

[Shawnee123]

I make a lot less for mental pain that results in mental disability.

Seriously, homeless guy totally did not get that because I wasn't physically working hard, my previous job was not stressful or difficult. Also, believe me, physical labor is not unknown to me. I crawled through strawberry fields for a quarter a quart, and have worked since I was 13. That includes all kinds of jobs, including one where I was testing some rf filters with a load that, if I bumped against a wire, I would have been cooked like a hotdog in a microwave. Eh...and I was educated to do that. Eh, and I made 12 bucks an hour.

I will admit the 70/hour figure was manipulated...and I am hard pressed to find an article which either states that they really only make a buck fiddy an hour or that they make 70. Here is an article outlining the deception, with some pretty good argument comments. http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs...-meme?tid=true

The health care for these workers is, as you illustrated, very expensive because of repetitive injuries. This does not make their job more important than a school teacher, imho. All jobs have risks, whether physical or mental or the fear of some nut coming in with a firearm.

And I also do not believe that small sacrifices would bring GM employees to poverty level; the news I heard this morning was that they were being asked to think about wages more along the lines of Honda and Toyota. They flatly refused. Again...let the industry die instead? Honda workers around here are doing quite well, and will tell you that. Unions have served their purpose; they do not work in today's economy.

And nothing negates in my mind retired workers bragging about how easy they had it back in the day. I'm sorry, it's the way I see it from personal accounts.

I've taken pay cuts to benefit my employers before. It meant my cow orker in the next office and the guy down the hall could keep working, too.

[Pico and ME]

Im unsure of why the union is stonewalling any wage changes at this moment, but I think its something they are going to lose in the long run anyway. But I also don't know the whole story on that situation either...it was only just mentioned in the news.

Union workers have been making concessions for years now, its not like they are resistant to sacrificing. You do have to understand, though, they are coming from a really high stand point when the auto industry was raking in billion and billions, and they were just sharing in that wealth.

I understand the bitterness that the average Joe has toward the auto industry, but I have my own too. There is a side of me that wants the industry to massively fail as a result of the people who are intent on not saving it, just to see the misery that WILL come to them as a result of what happens to this country when it does. Thats my shortcoming and its a result of dealing with short-sighted people. I'm sorry if that sound like a dig at you, its not really, I value your insight Shawnee.

[Pico and ME]

Gettlingers response.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

And I also do not believe that small sacrifices would bring GM employees to poverty level; the news I heard this morning was that they were being asked to think about wages more along the lines of Honda and Toyota.

So what is the objective? To save the auto industry? To make that industry productive? How many times must I post these numbers? Where is the cost in a car? Why does GM lose maybe $700 or $1000 on every car? Labor amounts to a tiny part of that cost and does not account for GMs grossly expensive products.

Where are almost all those losses found? Did 70 horsepower per liter not make the problem obvious when posted in the Cellar how many years ago? Seven?

GM cars cost more to build than any other car because even the engines need two extra pistons in every car. Whereas a patriotic car has maybe 25 or 30 man hours to build the entire car, GM cars take 40 and more.

So we blame the employees - or do we go after the only reason for those numbers? Employees did not choose to use pathetic 52 and 62 hp/liter engines. Employees did not choose to stifle that innovation for 35 years. Employees did not spend massive capital funds to install robots to deliver parts to the assembly lines. Employees did not stifle innovation until finally required by government regulation. Employees did not choose to violate basic principles of quality taught by Deming to Toyota et al 40 years ago. Who did all that? Who are these people you are not blaming in every post - if addressing GM's only problem?

Attacking unions is a symptom that you have completely ignored the numbers. Attacking the unions means you have ignored my every Cellar post about GM for the past 20 some years. Unions did not create these significant GM problems.

We had a discussion previously about wheel alignment. Was it not yet obvious, just from that discussion, why GM was failing? Why do any GM cars require annual wheel alignment? Did unions also create that failure? Of course not. That is why GM loses maybe $700 or $1000 on every car. But then, for as long as UT has known me, I have been accurately critical of GM (and amazed anyone was buying their crap).

I thought the purpose was to make GM profitable. A post would attack GMs real problems and not cite the mythical salary numbers. GM is a company where cars are so poorly designed – where assembly plants are so poorly designed – that its auto products must be sold at a loss. GM even bought a rental car company just to create sales - their products have so long been that bad. 25% of GMs sales were only to employee families. A fact that The Economist long ago called socialism. A fact that also is not traceable to unions – and directly traceable to top management. So why do you blame unions? I thought the objective was to fix GM – to make it profitable?

[Shawnee123]

I dunno...huh, what?

t-dub...a person could actually agree with you and you'd pull one of your confusing posts. Eh...I'm bored and moving on. You can enlighten me (i.e. regurgitate some talking head's ideas) some other time.

And Pico...thanks for the conversation. I certainly hope for the best for you and yours. I also care about what happens to the numbers upon numbers of folks who will be affected. I often go all the way to one side before thinking and sliding over a bit. You're good people.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

"That type of position"? What is comparable, Al Capone? No wait, he worked full time.

Nicely played.

I'll be getting the 0% cost of living adjustment, so we can maintain full staffing. excepting that person who was escorted out...