Big Three Bailout

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by Bumper

But you'll note the steelworker's union boss isn't mentioning the billions in subsidies and support the incredibly inefficient and outdated US steel industry has received. Just look at the rationalization and closures and consolidation that took place after some of those plugs were pulled. Ya' gotta' break some eggs. While I feel a significant bailout is appropriate, I also believe at some point you have to turn off the machine, and not everyone will necessarily survive.

I agree...its a matter of timing....right now is not a good time for more big failures if we can prevent them...

[kirbyfan]

Originally Posted by Jacko

I agree...its a matter of timing....right now is not a good time for more big failures if we can prevent them...

All things considered I am not sure its not the best time for it to happen. Let get this stuff straightened out and not prolong it. Whats the incentive for any of these guys to start conducting business appropriately if they know they are just gonna get bailed out....

Then again I am no economist so...

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by kirbyfan

All things considered I am not sure its not the best time for it to happen. Let get this stuff straightened out and not prolong it. Whats the incentive for any of these guys to start conducting business appropriately if they know they are just gonna get bailed out....

Then again I am no economist so...

I would absolutely agree with you in more "normal" times....I think these are not "normal" circumstances....again, in more "normal" circumstances if one of these guys were going to fail, I would say let 'em fail....in these circumstances, when 2 or even all three might fail and rock our consumer confidence and economy into a deeper trench than it is already in? Scare people even more so they take even more of their money out of the banks and put it under their mattress?

Well that scares the heck outta me....we need stabilization and confidence here right now, not more chaos.

In normal situations I might agree with sctx to fire the COO due to the mess they are in....in these circumstances? Well, if we fire every responsible bloke whose company is hurting and got caught surprised by these events...well, we are all going to be without a job.

The auto companies were on the course of very serious reconstruction from their sins of the past when this chaotic event hit our economy..perhaps their response was not serious enough..they will pay/have paid for those mistakes in the marketplace no matter what we do.....but even companies that were not in recovery from past operational sins have been hurt badly already by this crisis.

We must be very careful here how we proceed....but then again, I am no economist. Lets hope the best economists and leaders we have get this right...

Oh I don't know..the more I think about it.......you could fire the COO AND give them the bridge loans they are seeking.

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by Bumper

But you'll note the steelworker's union boss isn't mentioning the billions in subsidies and support the incredibly inefficient and outdated US steel industry has received. Just look at the rationalization and closures and consolidation that took place after some of those plugs were pulled. Ya' gotta' break some eggs. While I feel a significant bailout is appropriate, I also believe at some point you have to turn off the machine, and not everyone will necessarily survive.

I think his comment was meant to point out the class issues in this bailout vs the banks. Blue collar jobs are important to the infrastructure of this country and not so easily tossed away. The knee-jerk reaction was to blame unions for high salaries and I do not think that is fair. In fact, I think it is complete BS.

The market is not going to solve this one.

[sctx]

Originally Posted by Jacko

Oh I don't know..the more I think about it.......you could fire the COO AND give them the bridge loans they are seeking.

good idea ...... my main problem is whether or not Congress is able to really evaluate the proposals submitted yesterday and determine that they are viable. If GM doesn't define it's market better, I'd deny their request for help because they will not survive as structured right now. The 1970's was a long time ago

[See Turtle]

Originally Posted by melliedee

I think his comment was meant to point out the class issues in this bailout vs the banks. Blue collar jobs are important to the infrastructure of this country and not so easily tossed away. The knee-jerk reaction was to blame unions for high salaries and I do not think that is fair. In fact, I think it is complete BS.

The market is not going to solve this one.

Reducing executive salaries alone will not solve this problem. And the unions are as culpable for this mess as management. Take a look at UAW, Teamster or steelworker contracts and pay close attention to the benefits. They are completely out of line with what any non-union American worker could ever expect. And for the leader of the UAW to comment a month ago that the union would not make any concessions is churlish at best. Kudos to union leadership for getting everything they can for workers. But a pox on them for demanding, and on management for acquiescing, to benefits packages that are beyond what's reasonable.

Everybody's gonna have to give til it hurts in order to put together a fix that returns the auto industry to stability and profitability.

[roni]

Yeah, screw the unions

We're going into negotiations. I filled out a survey yesterday. My priorities were adding another step to the salary schedule (I just hit the top one), and improving early retirement benefits.

But then I don't make cars or steel.

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by See Turtle

Reducing executive salaries alone will not solve this problem. And the unions are as culpable for this mess as management. Take a look at UAW, Teamster or steelworker contracts and pay close attention to the benefits. They are completely out of line with what any non-union American worker could ever expect. And for the leader of the UAW to comment a month ago that the union would not make any concessions is churlish at best. Kudos to union leadership for getting everything they can for workers. But a pox on them for demanding, and on management for acquiescing, to benefits packages that are beyond what's reasonable.

Everybody's gonna have to give til it hurts in order to put together a fix that returns the auto industry to stability and profitability.

Like what, affordable health care with a vision plan? My dad is UAW, retired. He was machine repair and had to crawl into a maw of metal and robots every time the line broke at the Jeep assembly plant, where each minute it's shut down costs thousands of dollars. He has excellent health care coverage and a decent retirement; that's the union's job to protect its workers.

Yes, unions should make concessions in hard times. But we don't want to return to a pre-union time of dangerous working conditions with no protections or benefits. That may be how we built this country, but we cannot look backward. Why can't a skilled tradesmen live solidly in the middle class with an auto job? What's "beyond reasonable" with regard to benefits?

[NiceTom]

Originally Posted by Jacko

..... Ford President Alan R. Mulally said, he would work for a salary of $1 a year.

GM chief executive G. Richard Wagoner Jr. also offered to work for $1 a year and said other top executives would accept major pay cuts.

I'd have more respect for these guys if they's actually proposed a realistic wage for themselves-say $500,000.

This $1 is just a wink, wink, nudge, nudge. Sure, $1-as long as we ignore that these guys are going to go right back to $10-$20 million when the attention wears off.

[See Turtle]

Originally Posted by melliedee

Like what, affordable health care with a vision plan? My dad is UAW, retired. He was machine repair and had to crawl into a maw of metal and robots every time the line broke at the Jeep assembly plant, where each minute it's shut down costs thousands of dollars. He has excellent health care coverage and a decent retirement; that's the union's job to protect its workers.

Yes, unions should make concessions in hard times. But we don't want to return to a pre-union time of dangerous working conditions with no protections or benefits. That may be how we built this country, but we cannot look backward. Why can't a skilled tradesmen live solidly in the middle class with an auto job? What's "beyond reasonable" with regard to benefits?

I have a pal who works for UPS. He can get four pairs of glasses a year at 100% just because he doesn't like the frames. I'm wearing the same glasses I've worn for three years because I don't have vision coverage for the $14,000 a year I pay out-of-pocket for healthcare. That's what I mean by unreasonable. You make cuts on frivolities like this and the cost goes down without affecting the quality of the benefits.

Look, I am in no way anti-union. But when the first thing out of the UAW's collective mouth is "no concessions," we've got a problem. If we're truly all in this together, then everybody has to play. UAW leadership should be sitting right next to Big Three management in these hearings.

[roni]

[quote=melliedee;1250893

Yes, unions should make concessions in hard times. [/QUOTE]

The UAW has made concessions twice in past few years, and they will make some now, but....

Blaming union workers for the errors of management is strange, in my view of the world.

Expecting union workers to accept the average level of benefits available at non-union shops and small businesses is not a reasonable expectation.

I do think the UAW will be more than willing to allow concessions already negotiated to be implemented before the agreed upon data in 2010.

Beyond that, let the negotiations begin. Do not do it by court intervention or by the desires of anti-union zealots who look for any excuse to try to weaken the power of workers to have a organized force to represent their interests at the table with the owner classes who are seeking to maximize profits, sometimes at the expense of the families of working people.

Solidarność"

[roni]

Originally Posted by See Turtle

I have a pal who works for UPS. He can get four pairs of glasses a year at 100% just because he doesn't like the frames.

I'm a pal who is a member of a union. I get $150 every two years for eyeglasses, and that covers maybe three of the frame-lense combinations at my HMO's vision shop. I typically pay an additional $100-150 for the pair I get every two years, as does Kathy.

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by See Turtle

I have a pal who works for UPS. He can get four pairs of glasses a year at 100% just because he doesn't like the frames. I'm wearing the same glasses I've worn for three years because I don't have vision coverage for the $14,000 a year I pay out-of-pocket for healthcare. That's what I mean by unreasonable. You make cuts on frivolities like this and the cost goes down without affecting the quality of the benefits.

Look, I am in no way anti-union. But when the first thing out of the UAW's collective mouth is "no concessions," we've got a problem. If we're truly all in this together, then everybody has to play. UAW leadership should be sitting right next to Big Three management in these hearings.

Is UPS part of the big three? My dad has the same vision plan as I do: glasses OR contacts every two years. They pay for cheapy lens and for the exam, you're on your own if you want the fancy frames and scratch gaurd. I don't think that is unreasonable.

The way people talk about UAW contracts you'd think the average auto worker has a company car, free tuition for the kids and botox coverage on their health plan. It's silly. It's union busting. It's class warfare at its most subtle because average folks believe it.

If you have a UAW example of an unreasonable benefit I'd like to hear it.

[Bumper]

Originally Posted by melliedee

I think his comment was meant to point out the class issues in this bailout vs the banks. Blue collar jobs are important to the infrastructure of this country and not so easily tossed away. The knee-jerk reaction was to blame unions for high salaries and I do not think that is fair. In fact, I think it is complete BS.

The market is not going to solve this one.

Talk about "knee jerk" reactions? In no way could anything I put forward in the opinion I expressed be construed as union bashing. As I've said on numerous occasions, within this very thread, by the way, there's plenty of blame to go around. The unions get a part of it for some of the demands they made, but the corporate side must shoulder an even larger share for their spineless, irresponsible and short-sighted approach to their organization's management. Being defensive serves no purpose. Reduction in executive remuneration amounts to chump change, and is largely window dressing, much like the well-publicized leaving the executive jets parked and driving hybrid cars to their latest round of talks. Pretty, and provides photo ops, but purely symbolic. I completely agree that the market isn't going to pull this one out. Massive effort on the part of all the stakeholders, and co-operation at an unprecedented level is required.

And of course, Mel, your father, and everybody else's father is entitled to reasonable recognition for a job well done. No sensible person is advocating a return to the dark ages of confrontational labour/management strife.

[MikeW]

Originally Posted by See Turtle

Reducing executive salaries alone will not solve this problem. And the unions are as culpable for this mess as management. Take a look at UAW, Teamster or steelworker contracts and pay close attention to the benefits. They are completely out of line with what any non-union American worker could ever expect. And for the leader of the UAW to comment a month ago that the union would not make any concessions is churlish at best. Kudos to union leadership for getting everything they can for workers. But a pox on them for demanding, and on management for acquiescing, to benefits packages that are beyond what's reasonable.

Everybody's gonna have to give til it hurts in order to put together a fix that returns the auto industry to stability and profitability.

I agree with this. However, the top level executives have to be the example and take the largest pay cuts.

The American automakers are not going to make this work until they and their workers learn to get along. They have to make it a place where the autoworkers want to come to work, not because of union benefits, but because it is a good place to work, they are treated well by those they work for and they have reasonable benefits in line with the rest of us in this country.

If they can't get there, then let them fail.