That is not true. You can start here. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/24/opinion/main4630103.shtml?source=RSSattr=Opinion_4630103 The $70 figure is a myth. The real wage comes out between $25 - $30.
max was saying total compensation not actual wage. if you include healthcare, pensions, etc., you end up at something around 70 an hour. obviously you can't blame the unions entirely for that. toyota doesn't have to pay healthcare in japan or legacy in the US. it also benefits from being in states with draconian anti-labor laws. of course unions negotiated a better deal for their workers. but a large part of that, healthcare and pensions, are things which the government should have taken a more active role in providing. the republican hypocrisy of worrying about what union employees in detroit are making, instead of bankers in new york, is repulsive.
I don't know about specifics of the auto workers. I do know that the teachers union in California actually introduced standards that teachers have to follow and live up to, in order to up the quality of teachers. When unions do something like that they are being useful in one of the most important areas there is. I also know that there are plenty of areas where unions have negotiated frivilous stupid things into some of the SAG contracts. But to flatly state that unions are no longer needed just isn't true.
yeah, management isnt needed. people will just automatically do what needs to be done... a rarity, and almost unheard of in the manufacturing industry. like is said, they create more roadblocks than not.
This is patently untrue. IBEW has workers in virtually every manufacturing industry in the country, and they set the standard for training and qualifying of electrical workers. UAW may or may not have low standards for workers, I've never worked with them.
Depressing article on the pathetic state of GM. ‘Already Bankrupt’ GM Won’t Be Rescued by U.S. Loan How hard would it to break up a giant piece of turd into 3 smaller pieces in order to see who survives?
"Credit Crisis II" feared if U.S. automakers fail By Kevin Drawbaugh - Analysis WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Dire warnings of lost jobs and fading U.S. industrial might are driving the Detroit bailout bandwagon, but there's a little-noticed passenger quaking in the backseat -- the credit markets. A bankruptcy or failure of General Motors Corp, Ford Motor Co or Chrysler LLC would threaten billions of dollars of financial instruments, with untold consequences, say credit market analysts and some pro-bailout lawmakers. "A collapsed U.S. auto industry would lead to defaults on over $1 trillion in corporate bonds, credit default swaps and other financial instruments," Michigan Democratic Sen. Carl Levin said in a statement provided to Reuters. "Major additional damage to U.S. financial institution balance sheets would result, and another grenade would be tossed into our credit markets," Levin said. The threat is so serious that "Credit Crisis Part II" looms if the government doesn't come to the aid of GM and Ford, said J.P. Morgan analyst Eric Selle, author of a research report that pro-bailout Democrats like Levin are citing. Some Republicans remain skeptical and continue to oppose a bailout, even as the White House and Democratic negotiators are trying to hammer out a loan plan valued at about $15 billion. The financial aspect of the bailout debate is important because it calls into question the administration's refusal to use the $700 billion bank bailout fund to help Detroit. Known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, the fund is meant to help the financial sector only, not manufacturers, the administration has insisted for weeks. In response, Democrats are trying to portray the automotive sector's problems as posing a systemic financial risk, and therefore suitable for TARP funds. CARS AND THE CREDIT CRISIS A bankruptcy of Ford, GM or Chrysler "would greatly exacerbate the credit crisis," Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Barney Frank said last week at a hearing on the issue. On Thursday, Democratic leaders wrote to the White House urging usage of the TARP on the grounds that "the failure of the Big 3 would have a major direct and negative impact on the financial sector, not just on the economy as a whole." Part of the problem, analysts say, is the vast amount of debt issued over the years by GM, Ford and their related financing companies, GMAC and Ford Motor Credit. For instance, 10 percent of the junk bond market is tied to GM, Ford and the financing companies, Selle said. Bond markets have seen trouble coming from Detroit for years and have priced in considerable risk already, said Mark Oline, managing director at credit rating group Fitch Ratings. "Some of the debt is trading at 20 or 30 cents on the dollar. Certainly there's a high probability of default factored into those prices," he said. That built-in risk reassures some analysts that bond markets could absorb a Big Three failure. But another layer of risk resides in the $250 billion of credit default swaps (CDS) written on Ford, GM, Ford Motor Credit and GMAC, according to data from the Depository Trust and Clearing Corp, a securities transactions clearinghouse. One senior Wall Street credit analyst said: "An outright failure of the automakers would be problematic for credit markets, given the feedback on the regional real economy, as well as workout processes from CDS settlements." With a recession under way, analysts say, the biggest danger may be to auto parts suppliers, businesses around auto plants like restaurants and retailers, and state and local governments that depend on taxes from the auto sector. "A bankruptcy would cause a domino effect and result in bankruptcies throughout the industry ... and further defaults throughout the supply chain," Oline said. "It's uncertain as to exactly what the extent of that chain of events would be." (Additional reporting by Walden Siew in New York and John Crawley in Washington; Editing by Steve Orlofsky)
After hearing Senator Corker speak, it's quite clear that the UAW screwed the pooch, and are complete r****ds. (note: I wish this Nora chick doing the interview would shut her yap and let the man speak) <iframe height="339" width="425" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/28194839#28194839" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>
Sorry, but I think you made this up. Are you going to show any evidence of this? If you say "It's so because this summer, gas prices were high, and now the Big 3 are on the verge of bankruptcy," I get to hit you.
Honestly, my initial reaction is twofold: (1) I don't care who's "screaming the loudest" (2) If I had to answer that question, I'd say that it tells me that the UAW and the autoworkers don't completely comprehend the magnitude of their blunder.
How much of "executive pay" goes into the cost of each car? I think that would be interesting data. I wonder if reducing executive pay would cut costs by a significant amount. I do agree that they are overpaid and wages/salaries should go down across the board on principal alone. To lay all the blame on just one side though is wrong. From what it sounds like, the UAW held up this deal that would most certainly have easily passed the senate vote. Not sure where the real "truth" is here.
You can google it. Their sales of large trucks and SUVs plummetted while people flocked to high mpg vehicles during the summer. If you want professional opinion, you can check the stories in the wsj for quotes from market analysts. It was a big story back then, bucket.
No they are not on the verge of bankrutpcy because of high gas prices. The higher gas prices accelerated their decline. Acceleration. It does have a major factor in consumer demand which vehicle they choose to buy, though. Civics, Prius, Corollas, and other japanese models were selling very well.
Wages are only one component of the cost of labor. It confused me at first also, Franchiseblade. Then, I found an awesome story in the NY Times that explained it very well. If we look at only wages, it's only a $3 difference. In wage related pay(paid holidays, vacation, overtime,nights and weekend pay), there is a $5 difference between Ford and the Japanese. The benefits are about the same, with only a $1 additional cost. If we add this all up, it's $9 difference, $55 vs $46. That's still not too bad. Now look at the retireee benefits, $16 vs $3! http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/b...l=1&adxnnlx=1229133650-K+19gyz0w6XT7Z7OjTNOrg
You can argue all you want about how "unfair" it was to ask the UAW to make concessions but that move (or lack thereof) is a huge risk of causing GM and C to go into bankruptcy. And how much will these workers and retirees make after that process is over? Like going all in hoping for an inside straight. Saying yes would have cost 20x that much just for those 2 because they are bleeding cash so bad that by the time "concessions" would have come around USA would have poored so much money down that hole that it would be harder and harder to walk away - and the UAW knows it. And in the mean time, everything is business as usual for the UAW - benefits, pensions, pay raises - they all stay. Sadly even closing the plants won't save them that much money. They still have to give full pay for the workers to stay home. How sweet is that? This just keeps them from making too much surplus and cuts their utility bill. Oh and Corker has been saying since last week that the UAW needed to make concessions as part of his 3 things needed. They said they would but gave no specifics - until pressed. 2011? When your currenct contract is up? That's a concession? 2 clubs, 3 diamonds, 5 spades, 6 clubs ... King of Hearts
