Auto bailout collapses in Senate

MadDoctor · Post by **MadDoctor** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:18 am

http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/11/news/co ... /index.htm

For this auto bill to pass... I'm guessing no less than 5 "rider bills" will be attached.

Perhaps aid to a factory in Billings that makes waterproof aspirin. Another to a company in Kentucky that rolls out square donuts. The possibilities are limitless!

(more to come)

Dakota · Post by **Dakota** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 1:00 am

MadDoctor wrote:http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/11/news/co ... /index.htm

For this auto bill to pass... I'm guessing no less than 5 "rider bills" will be attached.

Perhaps aid to a factory in Billings that makes waterproof aspirin. Another to a company in Kentucky that rolls out square donuts. The possibilities are limitless!

(more to come)

In a perfect world yes.

Ridiculous yes.

US itself, collapses. Probably.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 1:19 am

Well.....the UAW is refusing to budge. They won't take pay cuts until 2011. From my understanding, that is 1 year after they were to assume the funding of their own retirement pensions.

What bothers me now about this development is that it doesn't seem to me that anybody involved in this is looking for a solution but rather decide on who gets to be the bad guy.

This is not the time for saving face.

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 7:08 am

Ummm....I'm not sure why they were ask to take cuts in the first place but from the article I read, it's not that they wouldn't, it's that they weren't given a time frame to accept the cuts. 2009 vs 2011 when current contracts are up.

JC · Post by JC » Fri Dec 12, 2008 7:52 am

downhill wrote:Ummm....I'm not sure why they were ask to take cuts in the first place

Really

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 8:03 am

JC wrote:Really

I figured it wouldn't be too long before you chirped in.

Your hate of unions is pretty well documented on here. So tell me again, what are your thoughts on Reagan again? You never did answer that question.

Personally I think that given a bit of time, most in the UAW would vote for consessions vs loosing their jobs. I can also understand the UAW's position. They can't just speak in a couple of hours for their whole membership.

Of course Republican leadership in congress knows that full well. It's a union busting trick by those who would rather see a union go down than help an ailing economy.

*See! What did I tell you! It's not the fault of the big three!!! It's the unions fault!" Partisan politics as usual.

Holding American jobs at gun point seems pretty partisan to me but hey.........it's a mindset that isn't going away.

I've an idea though, JC. How about Congress take a pay cut as well. They're the ones who are responsible for the whole economic melt down.

That said, guess what? I'm sure Bush is going to dip into that 700 billion fund if the Senate doesn't act soon. That means, no consessions by the union, and no concessions that things will be different by the big three.

JC · Post by JC » Fri Dec 12, 2008 8:19 am

downhill wrote:I figured it wouldn't be too long before you chirped in.

Your hate of unions is pretty well documented on here. So tell me again, what are your thoughts on Reagan again? You never did answer that question.

Personally I think that given a bit of time, most in the UAW would vote for consessions vs loosing their jobs. I can also understand the UAW's position. They can't just speak in a couple of hours for their whole membership.

Of course Republican leadership in congress knows that full well. It's a union busting trick by those who would rather see a union go down than help an ailing economy.

*See! What did I tell you! It's not the fault of the big three!!! It's the unions fault!" Partisan politics as usual.

Holding American jobs at gun point seems pretty partisan to me but hey.........it's a mindset that isn't going away.

I've an idea though, JC. How about Congress take a pay cut as well. They're the ones who are responsible for the whole economic melt down.

That said, guess what? I'm sure Bush is going to dip into that 700 billion fund if the Senate doesn't act soon. That means, no consessions by the union, and no concessions that things will be different by the big three.

I think all in all the Reagan era was great. Americans prospered in comparison to the days of Carter.
Hate is a pretty strong word for my view on unions. My stepfather worked @ GM when I was in HS, and still does as well as my sister. That job put food on our table, and clothes on our backs. I believe all sides need to give a lot. I mean the UAW wants money from the tax payers, but won't take any cuts, c'mon. My business is directly related to the auto industry so it hurts me as well.
Hell yeah congress should take cuts as well.

Roody · Post by **Roody** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 8:20 am

I've taken a bit of a break from following this situation. Can someone explain why the unions won't take a pay cut?

Sava700 · Post by **Sava700** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 8:31 am

Union Greed.. imagin that

Leatherneck · Post by **Leatherneck** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 8:36 am

Union = necessary evil

These times they are a changin'

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 8:42 am

Sava, I don't think you are in a postion to explain to anyone about unions. lol

Roody, who knows if they won't? Union leaders aren't exactly in a postion to just say, "Sure, we'll drop 4 bucks off of the pay of every member." I believe it would have to come down to a vote.

Agian, it's just typical antiunion tactics by the Republican party. It's not exacly like they get any pac money from unions. lol Payback time.

There is also this consensus among many Reps in congress that it's not that big a deal if Chrysler and GM claim chapter 11. Some of them think that those two companies will come out a lot leaner and more competitive. Of course that would kill the UAW and insiders think that's exactly what Republican leadership in the Senate is trying to do.

Despite the fact that thousands and thousands of jobs are at risk.

Sava700 · Post by **Sava700** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 8:45 am

downhill wrote:Sava, I don't think you are in a postion to explain to anyone about unions. lol

.

Yeah, I am.

I've had direct involvement with the UAW for over 4 years..thats plenty of time to know how they work. I do say some of the things they try to do are for the good interest of its members but in the long run its nothing but greed drivin incentives and money into the pockets of the big wigs. Remember I've been in direct involvement with the auto industry for over 10years..so I have more than enough experience to back what I say.

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 8:48 am

Sava700 wrote:Union Greed.. imagin that

Compared to what? Corporate America? LMAO!

Dude, you are a walking, talking, double entendre. Greed is good, if it's corporate like Walmart. Greed is bad if it's collective to better lives, create safe working conditions, keep our kids from being used for hard labor, helps strengthen the middle class and last but not least it costs you 40 cents.

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 8:50 am

Sava700 wrote:Yeah, I am.

I've had direct involvement with the UAW for over 4 years..thats plenty of time to know how they work. I do say some of the things they try to do are for the good interest of its members but in the long run its nothing but greed drivin incentives and money into the pockets of the big wigs. Remember I've been in direct involvement with the auto industry for over 10years..so I have more than enough experience to back what I say.

The other side of the fence dosn't exactly mean you have any clue what unions are about. I'm also beginning to think that all this involvement is pure balderdash.

Always speaking from the management side isn't exactly knowing what's going on or why.

Sava700 · Post by **Sava700** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 8:52 am

downhill wrote:Compared to what? Corporate America? LMAO!

Dude, you are a walking, talking, double entendre. Greed is good, if it's corporate like Walmart. Greed is bad if it's collective to better lives, create safe working conditions, keep our kids from being used for hard labor, helps strengthen the middle class and last but not least it costs you 40 cents.

what the hell? Get hit in the head by that spittoon? Spend 40cents and get yourself an aspirin for the pain.

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 8:54 am

Whatever you say, Sava. lol

Sava700 · Post by **Sava700** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 8:55 am

downhill wrote:The other side of the fence dosn't exactly mean you have any clue what unions are about. I'm also beginning to think that all this involvement is pure balderdash.

Always speaking from the management side isn't exactly knowing what's going on or why.

I had friends who were part of the union, they all said the same thing once the UAW got in they didn't attempt to help them out one bit when things started getting hard..instead they tried to worm money out of the company anyway they could which again is nothing but Greed drivin and one reason why we shouldn't give one red cent to the Big3 cause it will go right into Ron's pocket. Doesn't surprise me they won't take a pay cut to retain a job in the long run...pretty stupid too.

"I believe the president of the UAW, Ron Gettelfinger, was too unrealistic and too selfish," Morici said on The Early Show.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/ ... econdStory

YARDofSTUF · Post by **YARDofSTUF** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 9:22 am

The UAW should have made compromises. I think it would have helped this bailout get through the senate.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 10:46 am

I'm not going to jump to any conclusions because the fog of war is still thick in the media. So depending on what news outlet is reporting, the bias tends to distort the truth.

In any case, I think a reasonable point can be made that the American people expect the UAW to make reasonable concessions in order to save their jobs.

Personally I think pay is at the very bottom of the issues. No matter how much the UAW gets paid or doesn't get paid....the companies need to sell their product and find efficiencies.

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 10:53 am

YARDofSTUF wrote:The UAW should have made compromises. I think it would have helped this bailout get through the senate.

Yup...all sides have to give a bit. We the public are giving with our tax dollars..which is out of our pocket. The UAW needs to stop worrying about keeping their wallets fat.

Part of me wants to see the big 3 collapse purely to get the UAW where it hurts, if they don't "give" a little. UAW doesn't give in a bit..fine..pull the carpet out from under them..no more auto industry! Go pump gas or wash dishes.

Sava700 · Post by **Sava700** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 10:58 am

YeOldeStonecat wrote:Yup...all sides have to give a bit. We the public are giving with our tax dollars..which is out of our pocket. The UAW needs to stop worrying about keeping their wallets fat.

Part of me wants to see the big 3 collapse purely to get the UAW where it hurts, if they don't "give" a little. UAW doesn't give in a bit..fine..pull the carpet out from under them..no more auto industry! Go pump gas or wash dishes.

fastchevy · Post by **fastchevy** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 11:10 am

YARDofSTUF wrote:The UAW should have made compromises. I think it would have helped this bailout get through the senate.

Bad things is the UAW isn't used to being told what to do or that they must compromise..this is a whole new situation for those *******s...I mean people.

tarpoon75 · Post by **tarpoon75** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 11:14 am

downhill wrote:Sava, I don't think you are in a postion to explain to anyone about unions. lol

Roody, who knows if they won't? Union leaders aren't exactly in a postion to just say, "Sure, we'll drop 4 bucks off of the pay of every member." I believe it would have to come down to a vote.

Agian, it's just typical antiunion tactics by the Republican party. It's not exacly like they get any pac money from unions. lol Payback time.

There is also this consensus among many Reps in congress that it's not that big a deal if Chrysler and GM claim chapter 11. Some of them think that those two companies will come out a lot leaner and more competitive. Of course that would kill the UAW and insiders think that's exactly what Republican leadership in the Senate is trying to do.

Despite the fact that thousands and thousands of jobs are at risk.

In all seriousness can you tell me why you think the UAW is not part of the problem in this whole issue?

Do we really need the UAW in it's present form in this day and age?

YARDofSTUF · Post by **YARDofSTUF** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 11:18 am

tarpoon75 wrote:In all seriousness can you tell me why you think the UAW is not part of the problem in this whole issue?

Do we really need the UAW in it's present form in this day and age?

A union in that line of work I would say yes, the UAW, no. The UAW is still stuck on old ideas and has a 1 track mind, focused on money.

A union is needed that understands the industry and that is interested in working with company to help its members getting quality pay and services, while helping the company get teh best out of its workers.

fastchevy · Post by **fastchevy** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 11:46 am

To contact the UAW International, write us at:
UAW
Solidarity House
8000 East Jefferson Avenue
Detroit, Michigan 48214

or call us at: (313) 926-5000

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 1:14 pm

From a CNN analyst:

Zakaria: Actually there are 12 international car companies that have manufacturing operations in the United States. Collectively, they employ 113,000 Americans directly -- even though that is less than the 239,000 at Ford, GM and Chrysler. However, those international car companies sell more cars than the Big Three and their customers love their products. They have millions of American shareholders. They do sophisticated work like research, design and marketing in the United States. All in all, they add jobs and high value to the United States.

CNN: So what are they doing better than the U.S. car companies?

Zakaria: It is simple -- better management. Yes, Detroit has problems because of its legacy costs, the cost of paying health care and pensions to its retirees. But many other Americans firms in other industries have had to change their benefit systems or die. Detroit always managed to avoid making the change in part because of government assistance.

But companies like Toyota, Honda, and BMW are not just skilled at cutting costs -- they make better cars. They have more flexible factories and production systems, and understand what American consumers want.

For example, Toyota and Honda are years ahead of American carmakers in designing and producing hybrid cars, and as consumer demand moves in that direction, they will reap the rewards.

Think · Post by **Think** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 2:09 pm

union will not make concessions? Wow, they are absolutely crazy

House will likely be forced to tap funds from the Wall Street bailout to lend them money, two Republican congressional officials told CNN.

-force concessions
-GM will backdoor this through GMAC anyway
-Chrysler? Yuck, let them sink
-Ford has some cash to survive amongst the three + union, management, CEO concession on salary and benefits coupled with funds from the WS bailout + bring in the European models will help them a great deal.

It's time for change.

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 6:01 pm

I keep laughing at this, "unions won't accept change". The UAW already did accept some consessions.

Read some more, will you people? It's not like the UAW can just say "Sure, we'd be willing to drop wage consessions 5 bucks an hour and we won't even let membership vote on it."

Come on now, quit reading what you want into all of this. Tell me, was there a single one of you who wondered why the UAW's view point was never given? It's pretty simple really. People generally go with their first instincts and have a hard time changing their minds about issues.

However you all know me very well by now or should. I don't mind showing you the other side of the coin.

Here's a little tidbit for you.

Gettelfigner took aim at criticism over UAW wages and demands that compensation be made the same as foreign auto companies’ U.S. plants. He pointed to research that showed Toyota workers at a plant in Kentucky were making, with bonuses, $30 an hour, compared to the $28.12 an hour paid to UAW workers at the Detroit automakers.

Wow, so by McConnell' reckoning. , The big three need to up the average from 28 bucks to 30 bucks.....

“This was just simply subterfuge on the part of the minority in the Republican party who wanted to tear down any agreement that we came up with,” Gettelfinger said.

Ok so this sounds like typical spin. I mean to say the UAW is now under attack for the failures of the big three. LOL Still there IS some truth to it.

Gettelfinger said he told U.S. Sen. Bob Corker, a Republican from Tennessee, that if Toyota was going to be used as the benchmark for wages, the union leader was willing to send a team of his researchers to Toyota to study the automaker’s entire wage structure.

“In addition to that, if we were going to use them as a benchmark, we should be permitted to see how they pay their management,” Gettelfinger said. “If we did that, we should also see their dealer contracts and as well as their supplier contracts. That would only make sense to me instead of somebody saying, ‘Here’s the wage — that’s what you have to agree to.’ ”

Gettelfinger blamed some Southern Republican who are antiunion and who represent communities that are home to foreign automakers. He said it was a “two-fer” by piercing “the heart of organized labor while representing the foreign brands.”

Well the last paragraph makes very good sense given what some of those southern states have giving to overseas car companies to get them to build in there respective states.

Still, autoworkers remain angry with the senators who tried to negotiate wage and benefit concessions from the union, then scuttled the House-passed bill that would have granted the loans and set up a "car czar" to oversee the nearly insolvent companies and get concessions from the union and creditors. Their top targets were Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.; Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., who led negotiations on a compromise; and Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., who has been a vocal critic of the loans.

Kentucky, Tennessee and Alabama all house auto assembly plants from foreign automakers, and union officials contend the senators want to drive UAW wages down so there would be no reason for workers at the foreign plants to join the union.

"They thought perhaps they could have a twofer here maybe: Pierce the heart of organized labor while representing the foreign brands," UAW President Ron Gettelfinger said at a Friday morning news conference in Detroit.

Interesting....and really there is probably some truth to this in that Dems would push for a national act to allow unionizing in states that are harder than a petrified pickle to get a union going.

Still....once again, it's not exactly the unions fault this measure failed. Things like a wage cut take time to vote on.

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 6:03 pm

tarpoon75 wrote:In all seriousness can you tell me why you think the UAW is not part of the problem in this whole issue?

Do we really need the UAW in it's present form in this day and age?

I agree with Yardy...yes we do need some kind of collective bargaining. Tell me exactly why you think we don't.

I've never said that the UAW didn't have a part in this mess. Quite the opposite. However I believe it's a lot less than the companies they work for.

JC · Post by JC » Fri Dec 12, 2008 6:14 pm

Gettelfigner took aim at criticism over UAW wages and demands that compensation be made the same as foreign auto companies’ U.S. plants. He pointed to research that showed Toyota workers at a plant in Kentucky were making, with bonuses, $30 an hour, compared to the $28.12 an hour paid to UAW workers at the Detroit automakers.

Wow, so by McConnell' reckoning. , The big three need to up the average from 28 bucks to 30 bucks.....

$30 per hour also included cash bonuses for performance. When you look at total compensation ie benefits etc, that's where the $ 40 an hour vs $ 73 comes in.

Gettelfigner talking about "benchmarks" based on Toyota is interesting considering the auto companies are in washington with their hats in their hands wanting tax payer money that we don't even have.

As I have said before, The unions and it's members have forgotten who they work for. I 'll give them a hint..... It's not the union.

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 6:18 pm

JC wrote:$30 per hour also included cash bonuses for performance. When you look at total compensation ie benefits etc, that's where the $ 40 an hour vs $ 73 comes in.

Gettelfigner talking about "benchmarks" based on Toyota is interesting considering the auto companies are in washington with their hats in their hands.

Oh I know full well where those differences were, JC.

You really don't think that Gettlefigner has a point? Look the UAW has never had a say in the direction the big three take their companies. They don't get to see contracts with dealers, suppliers ect. He has a point that to know what those other companies are doing, may save the big three.

Or, it may show a lot of graft from a few southern states who in some ways, have been actually helping, foreign car companies at the tax payer expense.

JC · Post by JC » Fri Dec 12, 2008 6:26 pm

downhill wrote:Oh I know full well where those differences were, JC.

You really don't think that Gettlefigner has a point? Look the UAW has never had a say in the direction the big three take their companies. They don't get to see contracts with dealers, suppliers ect. He has a point that to know what those other companies are doing, may save the big three.

I don't know. Since when do the employees dictate how a company runs and how they do business. With that said, I have never worked for a union so....

downhill wrote: Or, it may show a lot of graft from a few southern states who in some ways, have been actually helping, foreign car companies at the tax payer expense.

True, but that is more on a state level I think, and with state tax payers money. I don't think they normally "give" money to them. Instead the offer lower taxes etc for them to build and employ in the area.

tarpoon75 · Post by **tarpoon75** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 8:22 pm

downhill wrote:I agree with Yardy...yes we do need some kind of collective bargaining. Tell me exactly why you think we don't.

I've never said that the UAW didn't have a part in this mess. Quite the opposite. However I believe it's a lot less than the companies they work for.

downhill wrote: Quote:
Originally Posted by tarpoon75 View Post
I say tell the UAW to go f@#k themselves

Educate yourself on the current problems of the big three then come back and post your findings.

Thank you very much.

What was this comment about then?

If I'm wrong then I'm wrong and apologize.

JC · Post by JC » Fri Dec 12, 2008 8:38 pm

I'm just thinking here. Maybe part of the problem with the US auto manufactures is an image issue. Maybe this could start some kind of uniformity. Uniforms might be the answer, I don't know. Have a certain level of professionalism about them, not that they are not professionals but at least look that way as well.
Disclaimer** (I come from a military background and like things uniform and "dress right dress")

MadDoctor · Post by **MadDoctor** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 9:04 pm

mountainman · Post by **mountainman** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 11:09 pm

$73/hour..... ?!?!?!

I wish I hadn't gone to college out of high school and just gotten a job at GM. Damn!! That's almost $152k per year. I made $26k my first year out of college with the chance to top out around $53k after 10 or 15 years and a masters degree.

Incredible.

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 12:02 am

*sigh*

No they don't make 73 bucks an hour.

Mark · Post by **Mark** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 12:09 am

downhill wrote:*sigh*

No they don't make 73 bucks an hour.

true, but that is the amount GM pays for all the union extras and health care, retirement benefits, ect.
or am i off base here ?

as Honda pays about $47 per hour or so ?

MadDoctor · Post by **MadDoctor** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 12:22 am

Mark wrote:the amount GM pays for all the union extras and health care, retirement benefits,

That's called the "fully loaded" cost of an employee. It varies quite a bit from company to company.

Some poor contractor works for me. He sees $18/hour. I pay his company $32/hour for the pleasure of having him at my beckoning call. $32 is the fully loaded cost.

JC · Post by JC » Sat Dec 13, 2008 9:10 am

MadDoctor wrote:

LOL, not quite.