Auto bailout collapses in Senate

[JawZ]

What isn't helping? The news not covering both sides of the coin, like exactly why those Senators from southern states trying to break the UAW or a slanted question by Couric, knowing full well that the UAW is willing to bargan but she needs to appease the mass that's she's indeed willing to ask tough questions as long as those quesitons don't raise the hackles of hard core Fox viewers who already hate her? lol


I dunno...but no matter the news stories about it all, this will always get overlooked.



I would guess that if you take away enough perks, there won't be a reason to be a member of the UAW.

What's next? My guess is they'll go after retirement dates.

Then after that, the truckers union and then unions representing railroads.

We aren't far right now from the days of the robber barons.


I stand by my original post that indeed, there are those in power who would rather work for their states than the country as a whole and it's not really the UAW as much as it is, bringing down industry in the north as it means more bucks in their respective states. The UAW gambit is just a smokescreen.

After reading your response....why does my gut get the feeling that there is union elitism going on here? I'm getting this strange feeling that somehow....CERTAIN blue collar workers are more deserving than others?

I could take care of the ENTIRE UAW healtcare for retirees issue in one fell swoop....Let the VA absorb all of their care.

Next.

[downhill]

Union elitism? CERTIAN blue colar workers are more deserving that others? I have not a clue what your inferring but hey.....if it makes you feel good, do it.

[JawZ]

Union elitism? CERTIAN blue colar workers are more deserving that others? I have not a clue what your inferring but hey.....if it makes you feel good, do it.

I'm just thinking out loud, please don't be offended. I do get the impression that the UAW does have a bit of an elitist attitude.

Let's look at it in realistic terms that most Americans can relate to:

They do a job. They make a product.

Most other Americans do the same thing and I'm sure they compare their benefits to those that the UAW enjoys....much like how people compare themselves to the NEA and the benefits which they enjoy.

I really don't see other union members outside of the UAW complaining about UAW benefits which I think is due to the fact that they themselves enjoy some unusually gracious benefits.

I do see non-union employees making negative statements. Is there a disparity in pay and benefits?

Are other unions coming to the aid of the UAW?

What I think would help to make the case to the rest of America is for the UAW to show what concessions they have already made and also what concessions they are offering. In this case, I feel that the UAW should be shoving their concession plans down our throats.

[WhoNut]

Any collective bargaining agreement is in place for the protection of BOTH sides. The Union in this case is getting it's ass handed to the public, but the current terms of the agreement were ratified by a bunch of well paid suits when times were good.

Remember that part of good management includes forecasting, and sometimes requires suffering through strikes and/or lockouts to avoid the current situation.

The fact is that as obstinate as the workers may or may not be, it was ultimately weak management that got the companies where they are.

[JawZ]

I'm now looking at this like it's a crime scene. No emotions....just show me evidence.

I've googled all kinds of phrases and I can't find anything but negative on the UAW.


I want someone to show me in black and white where they have made concessions and what they are currently offering as concessions. I think that's a simple request and a fair one.

Today, I read this:

UAW Gears Up To Fight Concession Demands In Auto Aid Package

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/art ... RTUNE5.htm

I don't care who is to blame. I want answers and I want solutions based in reality.

This is from Nov 15th.

Gettelfinger says no more UAW concessions
UAW leader says no more concessions

By MARK WILLIAMS, AP Business Writer Mark Williams,

COLUMBUS, Ohio – Even as Detroit's Big Three teeter on collapse, United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger said Saturday that workers will not make any more concessions and that getting the automakers back on their feet means figuring out a way to turn around the slumping economy.

"The focus has to be on the economy as a whole as opposed to a UAW contract," Gettelfinger told reporters on a conference call, noting the labor costs now make up 8 percent to 10 percent of the cost of a vehicle.

"We have made dramatic, dramatic changes and the UAW was applauded for that," he said.

Instead, Gettelfinger blamed the problems the auto industry is suffering from on things beyond its control — the housing slump, the credit crunch that has made financing a vehicle tough and the 1.2 million jobs that have been lost in the past year.





Again.....what concessions have been made. All I hear this idiot say is that they have made dramatic concessions and were applauded for it.

Ok.....WTF were they?

[Sava700]

Again.....what concessions have been made. All I hear this idiot say is that they have made dramatic concessions and were applauded for it.

Ok.....WTF were they?

I agree..he's greedy and so is the UAW as a whole.. I've meet him..he comes across as a major ahole!

[downhill]

I agree..he's greedy and so is the UAW as a whole.. I've meet him..he comes across as a major ahole!

Pics of you standing beside him or I'm calling shens.

[downhill]

I'm now looking at this like it's a crime scene. No emotions....just show me evidence.


Ok.....WTF were they?

Evan, I happen to know that you're an expert with google.

Besides this round with congress? Here's what they were/are willing to do right now without going to their members for a vote.

Mr. Gettelfinger said Wednesday that the union would suspend the much-criticized “jobs bank” program, which allows laid-off workers to continue drawing nearly full wages.

He also said the union would agree to delay the multibillion-dollar payments to a new retiree health care fund that the automakers were scheduled to start making next year.

Beyond those two concessions, Mr. Gettelfinger said the U.A.W. would be open to modifying other terms of its contracts. Changes could include reductions in wages, health care or other benefits, and would require approval from union members.

Sorry for the big letters but it seems that most people just keep floating over that part of the issue and start blaming the UAW for the big three's problems, which is pretty short sighted.

As to concessions over the last 10 years? It took me 2 minutes to come up with that answer. Most of them are in health and of course I believe the 2007 agreement that starts new employees out at 14 bucks an hour.

Most of the raises since 2002, I believe aren't in keeping with most industry percentages either. That said, they were high to begin with so it's a moot point.

Now UOD, you say this and that but it's pretty obvious by your posting style, that you really are looking for a way to demonize the UAW.

Again, I've said it before that the UAW have problems but the failure of the big three lies squarely on the shoulders of their management.

Even with loans, I'm not sure that GM and Chrysler will survive. Why? It has nothing to do with their product line but the fact is, NOBODY is buying new cars.

Even overseas plants are having problems but the big difference and it's a sorry state of affairs that I have to keep repeating myself is, their respective countries seem to not be divided on the notion that they can just let their major industries fail.

We can't seem to get past that because of this class struggle between labor and big money as well as how the news portrays it.

Again, it's in the best interest of Corker and friends if all three fail. Or at least that's the perception they give. The result of this if two of the big three fail, will certainly bite them on the ass as the economy takes one more tailspin from all the companies put out of business by thei failures.

Now in all of this, where is the outrage over management's wages? Have you compared say, the President of Toyota America vs say, GM's?


Cliffnotes.

1. Google is your friend.

2. The UAW has and will certainly make more concessions.

3. It's not the UAW's fault that the big three are in this mess.

4. Corker and friends may seem like they have the interest of the taxpayer at heart but the reality is, it's a smokescreen.

[Sava700]

Pics of you standing beside him or I'm calling shens.

umm ok let me go back in time to 2004 and get that for ya..

[JawZ]

Evan, I happen to know that you're an expert with google.

Besides this round with congress? Here's what they were/are willing to do right now without going to their members for a vote.



Sorry for the big letters but it seems that most people just keep floating over that part of the issue and start blaming the UAW for the big three's problems, which is pretty short sighted.

As to concessions over the last 10 years? It took me 2 minutes to come up with that answer. Most of them are in health and of course I believe the 2007 agreement that starts new employees out at 14 bucks an hour.

Most of the raises since 2002, I believe aren't in keeping with most industry percentages either. That said, they were high to begin with so it's a moot point.

Now UOD, you say this and that but it's pretty obvious by your posting style, that you really are looking for a way to demonize the UAW.

Again, I've said it before that the UAW have problems but the failure of the big three lies squarely on the shoulders of their management.

Even with loans, I'm not sure that GM and Chrysler will survive. Why? It has nothing to do with their product line but the fact is, NOBODY is buying new cars.

Even overseas plants are having problems but the big difference and it's a sorry state of affairs that I have to keep repeating myself is, their respective countries seem to not be divided on the notion that they can just let their major industries fail.

We can't seem to get past that because of this class struggle between labor and big money as well as how the news portrays it.

Again, it's in the best interest of Corker and friends if all three fail. Or at least that's the perception they give. The result of this if two of the big three fail, will certainly bite them on the ass as the economy takes one more tailspin from all the companies put out of business by thei failures.

Now in all of this, where is the outrage over management's wages? Have you compared say, the President of Toyota America vs say, GM's?


Cliffnotes.

1. Google is your friend.

2. The UAW has and will certainly make more concessions.

3. It's not the UAW's fault that the big three are in this mess.

4. Corker and friends may seem like they have the interest of the taxpayer at heart but the reality is, it's a smokescreen.

DH, I've googled my ass off on this subject and all I get is 100 pages of media BS all spun up around the recent developments.

I want to see historical data. I've been on the UAW website and I can't find anything on there about concessions either.

I don't want hearsay, innuendo, or even what Gettelfinger says that they've made in the press because I don't trust the press to represent his comments fully.

I am NOT looking to demonize the UAW. I want to demonize this process.

The UAW is not responsible for the collapse of the industry and neither is MANAGEMENT!!!! Management insures that the UAW builds the vehicles in accordance to the design criteria set forth by industry leadership. Management doesn't decide what vehicles to make, market, etc. So how can the UAW make the statement that it's all management's fault????????????

Nobody wants to buy a gas guzzling SUV when gas is at $4+ a gallon....DUH!!!!


Nobody really wants to buy American because the perception is that American vehicles are gas guzzling pieces of crap. They might be safe as a tank but who cares when gas prices are so high?

I have been agreeing with you all along but you have fallen into this whole trap that just because I disagree with one snippet of how this is unfolding, all of a sudden I'm anti-union when I'm not. I do hate the NEA and what they get away with but most of this is due to a failure in leadership to recognize economic trends.

1973 taught everyone a valuable lesson that oil prices are volatile. Vehicle manufacturers should have contingency plans in place to deal with this volatile market.


What you need to understand DH is that my tax dollars are NON-FRIGGIN-NEGOTIABLE!!!!

If I'm being asked to give aid....and I'm WILLING to give aid, then you sit your ass down at the negotiating table until you reach a deal.

So all this hokey bullcrap about one side pointing the finger at the other to find fault......NO, this isn't a fault finding mission. We are in rescue mode. You don't stop the rescue until we have completed the mission. What is so hard to understand about that? That means that nobody leaves the negotiating table until they have reached a deal....I'll give them piss breaks once per hour. Other than that, better call for pizza delivery and a IV drip of caffeine.


Lastly, please for the love of God, will someone link me to UAW concessions that doesn't rely on the news media? PLEASE WITH SUGAR!!!!

I can't believe that the UAW contracts are not available on wikileaks.

[JC]

Our tax dollars are going to be pissed away in the next 3 months with nothing to show for it. GM and Chrysler are in big trouble and the labor unions will ensure the demise of both these companies. It's happened before. Remember when the pilots union killed the already crippled Eastern airlines for failing to make any.... you guessed it, concessions. Then what happened? It was sold for pennies on the dollar.

[JawZ]

I'm confused after finally finding the contracts....

2003 UAW contract with Chrysler
http://www.uaw.org/contracts/03/dch/dch02.cfm

$17,000 increase over 4 years


2007 contract with GM
http://www.uaw.org/contracts/07/gm/index.php

The agreement will deliver more than $13,000 in economic gains for a typical UAW member, including a $3,000 signing bonus, two 3 percent lump sums and a 4 percent lump sum.


How are these concessions?


Or is this a sleight of hand technique where we say we make concessions....yet we are still making gains.

So instead of getting a 15% raise, I only get an 8% raise. So I conceded 7% of my raise.

One of the other links I found was this which is Gettlefinger's testimony before the Senate.
http://www.uaw.org/auto/pdf/120408SenateRG.pdf

One of the statements he said is that they haven't made any gains to base wages which I find odd because one of the statements that is made is that in lieu of wage increases, they received bonuses.


I need more time to digest all of this.

[downhill]

UOD.... a little fib on my part. Knowing how good you are at finding info, I just did a little white lie. I couldn't find an exact link to specifics on what the UAW has given up either. I just figured that if I pushed the right buttons, you'd come up with something.

Shoot me if you wish. lol

Maybe the reasons because is that news articles never mention concessions, but only what the contracts end up being. It would behoove Mr. Gettlefinger's point if they would produce exactly what concessions were actually made, in the last three settlements.

The 2003 contract with Chrysler? Well sure on the face of it, that contract looks like a very huge gain and in fact it is. The reality is, Chrysler employees made some drastic concession when it was going under. In 2003, it was obvious that Chrysler had made some huge gains and yet wasn't ready to share the wealth. That huge gain brought Chrysler employees to just up to what Ford and GM employees were making. Those were promises made to the UAW by Chrysler under Iacocca. Chrysler's problems aren't just people not buying their products though. They have issues with a few componets that they refuse to address. The biggest is their tranny's. Pure crap.


The GM contract? Sure on the face of it, that looks like a killer contract and really it is with benifits and that "jobs' bank" program that GM should never have signed. That said, guess who'll be picking up the tab for the unemployed in GM? Of course GM will have to pick up part of it but the State of Michigan and anywhere else GM operates will also be picking up part of that tab.

Back to the GM contract. That 12 percent looks to be over 4 years but the reality is, the workers had been without a contract for some time. So it's really not as extravagant as it looks.

What's funny is that even Wagner was putting a stump speech in 2007 that with all the money that GM was going to save that they were going to plow that into "green" autos. The only problem is, those savings weren't to take effect till 2011.

Back to the gist of it. Other nations are working right now to save their own car industries and really, that's what we should be focused on. Otherwise we simply become a service economy and that's not inductive to keeping us a strong nation. Nor does it help build a middle class which also helps build a bigger middle class.


Lastly, I hate to even bring this up but tax money? My god we spend more in Iraq in a year than this would ever cost us without blinking an eye.

The problem with all this is, so far it's not costing the American taxpayer an nickle as we've not been ask to pay for any of it for the last 8 years.

Now, if the loans actually do come through and all three become solvent, then the American taxpayer will experience something we've not seen in years. An actually boost to pay the national debt in the way of interest.

Somewhat offtopic. Have you read anything about some language in the banking bailout that the admin added that gets some of the big managers off the hook for monies spent frivolously?

[JawZ]

DH, the specifics pretty much have me clueless. I normally don't follow this type of stuff. I feel this is where the taxpayer gets cheated. They capitalize on our ignorance and I am ignorant on this issue. I wish I could find some type of cheat sheet on all of this.

This is how I relate to it...as a simple minded consumer.

Right now, I'm debt free. My truck is a 1997....been paid off for years lol. It is a GM...a Chevy 1500 Cheyenne Ext Cab. IT has 144,000+ miles and still runs strong. It needs TLC on a fairly regular basis but it keeps going.

Realizing that this truck cannot last forever, I've been looking at other vehicles. I will not sell or trade in my truck because I use it all the time. I hunt, I get firewood with it, I transport big bulky items, etc. I actually use the truck for it's intended purpose. But with the gas crunch on, I want to conserve while saving myself some money for more important things.

When I go out to the big 3 and look for small, low priced, economy vehicles....I just don't see anything in my price range not to mention anything that I like looking at.

I'm a Volkswagen guy. I like the Jetta diesel's. I really don't like anything that the big 3 has to offer.

[downhill]

I had a VW Rabbit diesel. I got around 55 mpg with it but I hated it with a passion. I had problems with it on an off and taking it in for warranty work where I bought it from was a joke. That place folded and for good reason.

The owner, passed away about 15 years ago and they had to bury him sideways, because he was so crooked.

I realize that even VW has stepped up it's reliability but I've been turned off from my experience with that Rabbit. lol

I too am in the hunt for a different truck. My god I can't believe the bargains out there on new trucks.

I've been looking for 2 wheel drives as I really don't need a 4X. I found a 2003 Toyata Tundra yesterday and talked with a salesman about it after looking at Kelly's blue book on it.

60k miles and looks almost like new.

Of course he did the usual. "How much do you want to spend." How much would you be willing to go on a payment." thing.

I played around for a bit and he offered it to me for 8 grand. LOL!!!

I offered him 5.7 grand and he'd be making money on that and he said I was way under. So I walked. I gave him my number and if he calls again, I'll offer him 5 even.

I can't decide if I want a new one or not.

[Sava700]

Your best bet is to find someone working at a few different plants for each and ask for a copy of the contract... Its usually all in it and they are often printed in little books in mass. I know a few guys at Ford in a few Louisville plants but thats about it...I only visited one GM plant during my time with Dana but we were not allowed to really go many places in the plant cause the uaw was afraid we were "lurking their jobs away"

[knightmare]

In the end the UNION will be perceived as the bad guy, when actually plant labor costs are not why the companies are failing.
Autoworkers have always made good wages, and the companies have maintained tremendous profits.

With so many people out of a job, there is no public sympathy for the UAW.

Although they shouldn't..probably in the end they will have to make concessions.

[knightmare]

Your best bet is to find someone working at a few different plants for each and ask for a copy of the contract... Its usually all in it and they are often printed in little books in mass. I know a few guys at Ford in a few Louisville plants but thats about it...I only visited one GM plant during my time with Dana but we were not allowed to really go many places in the plant cause the uaw was afraid we were "lurking their jobs away"

I thought you may have worked at a DANA plant. The Union is not why your plant closed. I know because my Uncle used to be a plant manager for a DANA plant. He still works for Parker. Before/When Parker bought them out a decision was made to make cuts. Dana had Union & non-union plants. The cuts were made for the plants with low profitability.

[knightmare]

[Sava700]

I thought you may have worked at a DANA plant. The Union is not why your plant closed. I know because my Uncle used to be a plant manager for a DANA plant. He still works for Parker. Before/When Parker bought them out a decision was made to make cuts. Dana had Union & non-union plants. The cuts were made for the plants with low profitability.

The main reason was logistics..which was going to happen sooner or later. The UAW coming in had a part in it cause the majority of the first wave of cuts were from union plants which makes perfect sense of a labor costs stand point. The plant that I was in was one of the most profitable along with best quality thats a true fact by the numbers. But I do know that Logistics was the main reason..costs of shipping the parts from the west,north and south to us then shipping the finished product back west to Kentucky when they just built a brand new facility in Dry Ridge Kentucky that was able to hold most of what we had in machines and lines. Some of it went o Mexico which helped for unemployment benefits for everyone that lost their jobs. I was asked at one time to go to Mexico to help setup and train..I told them to take that and shove it!

I was a part of management at my plant..and I know all too well that the UAW was indeed a part of why the plant was closed.

[downhill]

Humm.....all this bellicose crap about the UAW and I read this.

AP study finds $1.6B went to bailed-out bank execs


Yes let's not help industry or the middle class and let's turn a blind eye to once again, corporate cronyism.

[knightmare]

Banks that got bailout funds also paid out millions for home security systems, private chauffeured cars, and club dues. Some banks even paid for financial advisers. Wells Fargo of San Francisco, which took $25 billion in taxpayer bailout money, gave its top executives up to $20,000 each to pay personal financial planners.


Yeah, lets blame the slowly shrinking, middle class workers for all of this economic fallout.

[Sava700]

Humm.....all this bellicose crap about the UAW and I read this.

AP study finds $1.6B went to bailed-out bank execs


Yes let's not help industry or the middle class and let's turn a blind eye to once again, corporate cronyism.

Its gone main stream news now
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/ ... ryHeadline

what a waste of tax money..

[knightmare]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... =worldwide


(Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Treasury may adopt a plan that would let a car czar or the Treasury secretary force General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC into bankruptcy if the automakers don’t show they can survive without government aid, a U.S. senator said.

GM and Chrysler would be required to submit viability plans by March 31 or lose any further U.S. support, Carl Levin, a Democrat from Michigan, told reporters in Detroit yesterday. The Treasury plan would resemble a measure passed by the U.S. House last week that was rejected by the Senate.

“I expect that the terms would be similar to the ones that were in the House bill,” Levin said. “The power rests in the hands of either the czar or the Secretary of the Treasury to force bankruptcy by March 31.”

[Sava700]

not greedy huh..imagin this....

UAW Vows To Fight Auto Bailout Terms

The nation's automakers are preparing to ask for wage and benefits concessions from their workers in early January to meet the conditions of a $17.4 billion federal aid package, but labor officials say they will seek to renegotiate the terms of the bailout rather than make those sacrifices.

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

Don't want to give up nothin to save their jobs is kinda stupid too.. wow just wow!

[Roody]

Poll: Public OK with auto bailout, but no more aid

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A new national poll Monday finds a majority of Americans approve of recent loans to big U.S. automakers, but less than 3 in 10 would support additional assistance.

Sixty-three percent of those questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey support the White House loaning more than $13 billion to American automakers Chrysler and General Motors, while 37 percent opposed the move.

In exchange for the loans, the deal calls for the auto companies to show by the end of March plans for viable new business models.

The poll numbers out Monday are drastically different from a similar poll from early December.

Sixty-one percent of those questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey out December 3 were against the federal government providing billions of dollars to the automakers, with 36 percent favoring such a bailout. Watch why six in 10 support the bailout »

Monday's poll shows 53 percent of Americans don't think government assistance for the automakers will help the U.S. economy.

But just 28 percent said they would approve providing the automakers with more money, while 70 percent said they would prefer to let them go bankrupt. Watch: Auto bailout explained »

"The opposition to any additional assistance may be a reluctance to spend more money that they think the government may never see again," Holland added. "Only 28 percent say the auto companies involved in the current program will be able to pay all or most of the $13 billion back; one in five say they will not be able to pay any of it back to the government.

"This perceived lack of ability to pay taxpayers back may be one reason why the poll indicates auto executives are not very popular with Americans. Eighty-two percent of those questioned have a negative view of auto executives."

Union leaders don't fare well either: Sixty-one percent of those polled have a negative view of them.

Two-thirds of those polled said they would be less likely to buy a car from an auto company in bankruptcy.

The CNN/Opinion Research poll was conducted Friday through Sunday, with 1,013 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey's sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/22/ ... index.html

[Sava700]

I didn't get asked that question or else I would disagree. Its easy to see the UAW won't get off its greed high horse and make concessions so the money needs to come back and then let them go bankrupt so the big 3 can void contracts and leave the UAW in the dust.