another union basher surfaces. i 'll make one more attempt to let facts shed some light on you opinion--i know you've made up your mind, so i shouldn't bother. yes the golf course loses money--michigan economy and domestic auto industry has been going down the drain since NAFTA (clinton i know) and the great decider made another run at trickle down economics.(you can add that every other foreign auto mfgrg has national health insurance which gives them a cost advantage of about $2000 a car over us because the repukes are afraid of socialized medicine when 46 million uninsured americans just want medicine.) but i digress black lake is probably too good a course for this side of the state (the east or blue collar side so to speak) the lake michigan side is where the money is together with a the best collection of courses - which is what most heavy golfers want--a collection of great links.
the public rate at black lake is $95 a round. as a UAW retiree I get a 30% discount. just the same i am not that good a golfer and i don't golf that often.
for over 40 years, the center itself has been well used by rank and file members and their families. the uaw pays their costs, rooms and meals -- with interest from the uaw strike fund. when oh when will the union bashers get it thru their skull the key fact that none of the federal bridge loan money is going to the uaw. the uaw is not asking anyone for a loan or a bailout. the uaw members have approved this use of their dues money for this center, including its golf course.
it may well be that the center is too expensive to run or the golf course is not used enough or its fees are too high. but since we (the UAW) are not asking you the taxpayer for a dime--what the hell business is it of yours!!!!. the union funds are not being used for something illegal or immoral. hell every household in america is currently spending $120 a month for the iraq war and that doesn't seem to upset you.
again, it is our dues money and if we want to let our members AND their families go to a beautiful training/education center with a golf course--why is that something that bothers you? i really really would like to know .
perhaps you would prefer that we use it to hire more uaw organizers or authorize more strikes.
the center has a total book value of 33 million course was built in 1998-99 for $6 million, which is part of this BOOK VALUE. book value is what it cost you to acquire and improve a piece of property. buildings depreciate somewhat over 42 years of use. market value is somewhat related to taxable value in michigan. perhaps you just came out of deep coma and have not yet learned that property values have been tanking dramatically for several years, particularly golf courses and 2nd home or resort property
thus thousands of property owners in michigan are challenging their tax assessments contending that the assessment are too high. why is the uaw ENTITLED to the same right of review that a corporate owner of the same type of property could secure.
is any of this sinking in--do you see that problem here is really with your own bias rather than any reasonable concept of right and wrong.?
but since we (the UAW) are not asking you the taxpayer for a dime--what the hell business is it of yours!!!!.
Gettlefinger was before Congress side by side with Mulally, Wagoner and Nardelli. They were all asking for the auto bailout. That got the taxpayer's attention.
hi: another union basher who does not know the facts but has a firm opinion:
did you know that the uaw re-opened its big three agreements in 2006 to give the auto companies relief on retiree health care costs. did you know that the current 2007 big 3 agreements provides for new hires at about $!5 an hour with greatly reduced health care, and 401(K) savigns plans instead of pensions. did you know that the UAW agreed to set up VEBA's (independent trust funds) to totally shift the so-called legacy costs from the employers (billions in retiree health care costs that were contractually promised by these companies). did you know that the again UAW agreed to re-open these contracts right now to address more reductions (job banks, etc.)
well know you do know a little bit of the story and your apology is accepted!
Ron Gettlefinger was there to support the Big Three's request for bridge loans to be provided to the BIG 3 so that these companies could stay open until the worldwide credit crunch eases up. jobs and lives were on the line and he did a hellava job and he flew commercial. i'll let you in on another little fact. gettlefinger is asked to be a luncheon speak at the center about twice a month. the center is 300 miles from soldiarity house. he gets up early drives to the center has lunch buffet style in the "lavish resort" with the other rank and file members and then gets in his still warm car and drives the five hours back by himself to detroit. yeh just another union fat cat to most who have opinions but actually know very little
in any event, the taxpayers have the absolute right to ask both the big three employers and the uaw what they are going to do to restructure the domestic auto industry. they also have the right to ask the debtors (the big 3 not the uaw) how the debt is going to be repaid. but the taxpayer has no right to ask the uaw to stop spending UAW dues money on its own members.
I say again ( as i think you all know rather well) at no time has the uaw asked you or the taxpayers generally for a dime or a loan for continuing uaw operations or maintaining the uaw center at black lake.. You may not want to accept or believe it but the UAW is a seperate entity from Ford Chrysler and GM.
I remember sitting in on a deposition of a chrysler vp tom minor some years ago. the lawyer asked something like "when or why did you give this particular benefit to the UAW' he exploded "listen sonny we never GAVE the uaw a dam thing" sometimes they negotiated hard and traded for some stuff we wanted, other times they put our feet to the fire and said your making millions in profits and we want you to share more of it with your employees--but we never GAVE the UAW anything!!"
but when i see things like 'let them die the slow agonizing death they have chosen. just don't ask me to subsidize it" i tend to take it very personally.
what is there about some people that despise the idea of factory workers making a good living while ignoring things like tax cuts favoring the rich and powerful?
i worked with the uaw and these people all of my adult life. they are the real american hereos as far as i'm concerned.
I still remember my first week in the labor pool at the GM Fleetwood plant. an old timer came to me and said "sonny the pay and the benefits are great but go back to school before you get sucked in. factory work is mind numbing and boring--get out before you get stuck" I did thank god!.
It's nice to get the real world perspective in here for sure.
This may be one to watch:
"SEOUL, South Korea — Unionized workers at Ssangyong Motor began voting Monday on whether to strike if management demands massive job cuts as part of a restructuring of the ailing South Korean automaker."
While the UAW may support the Big Three in their quest for these loans/bail outs, they aren't asking for taxpayer money. In fact they have been running the international in a prudent fashion.
Well the bailouts are taxpayer money since no bank will loan the auto companies the money, isn't that correct? And Gettlefinger was at the table with the CEOs asking for the money. This is taxpayer money, yours and mine, being loaned to a very risky set of borrowers.
You fail to mention the positive externalities of unions. The prevailing wage in any give area is calculated from an average. This very average is kept high by high paying employment. This is but one of the benefits that non union folks get from union/UAW folks, there are more.
I agree that the overall wage base sets the market. The unions have helped this. But we are now competing internationally. The J3 and others are making vehicles profitably in the USA. I don't see them having trouble hiring workers or making quality products. Since even the UAW wants the D3 to be successful, what is the magic formula that allows the D3 to get on their feet again? Even if they get bridge loans during the extended economic downturn, they are losing market share. Where are the products that beat the competition?
same car built in canada by same auto company has an almost $2000 price advantage. that is on big problem for domestic auto companies-but they too fought national health care as part of our failed republican tradition .
Well the Japanese companies making cars in this country have employees that have health care? How do they accomplish that? Perhaps the US workers contribute more? So that price advantage is going into the pockets of the UAW. Problem is that then the cars aren't priced competitively. That's not going to work out in the long term.
But UAW will never NEVER ever negotiate away a vested benefit.
Well the reality could end up being a choice:
a - negotiate away a vested benefit; or b - company goes bankrupt and then you get NOTHING.
wall street, AIG, Bear Stearns etc where we dumped a trillion saw no demands that high salaries (which are about 60% of those industries costs) be reduced as a condition of the gifts of money.
No disagreement. The only issue (supposedly) was time - we were so closed to economic collapse in October that there was not time for long negotiations. (Not sure I believe that).
the credit crunch has affected all worldwide auto companies but this country and its repubs are the only ones demanding that hourly workers race to the bottom to the level of non-union transplants.--why are the transplants the standards for fair wages and benefits anyway--and why stop there, how low are the mexican and south korean rates?? soon we can go down to china rates and then finally the repubs may be happy.
Well the transplants are making money IN THIS COUNTRY, so that's why we don't look at China. Approximately 50% of the auto production in this country is successful and making money, what is the common denominator of the failing companies vs. the successful companies? It is the UAW.
There is a very plausible explanation that the reason the D3 have been losing market share and failing is that they have high structural costs, they have high labor costs, they have cheapened their product to make up for the high costs of their labor, and as a result they are dismal failures. If we are going to endanger $Billions more of taxpayer dollars we deserve to see a good chance for success, correct?
If the UAW is a significant (not the only) part of the problem, then that is one aspect of D3 operations that should change to allow for likely success. If the D3 don't like the conditions they certainly don't have to take the loan.
OK somebody said that Japan doesn't put tariffs on American cars ,they just don't want that crap over there . . . well how come they will not let GM or Ford BUILD cars there ?
We keep hearing this -- is there a web citation that give details or shows that this is true? Perhaps manegi can comment from Japan.
So the UAW is running a golf course that loses money while Goldfinger testifies to Congress to get taxpayer money?
every other foreign auto mfgrg has national health insurance which gives them a cost advantage of about $2000 a car
Wrong. The transplant companies in the US make 50% of our automobiles and they don't have nationalized health care, yet they are profitable. Honda Civics made here, no nationalized health care. Toyota Camrys made here, no nationalized health care. BMW SUVs made here, no nationalized health care. Hyundai's made here, no nationalized health care. Half of US auto manufacturing is profitable, here, without nationalized health care - just not the UAW companies.
when oh when will the union bashers get it thru their skull the key fact that none of the federal bridge loan money is going to the uaw.
Well if the reason the D3 are not cost-competitive is because of the union, then indirectly the bailout IS going to the union. The bailout supports D3 operations so that the D3 can continue to fund Union benefits.
the uaw is not asking anyone for a loan or a bailout
Last I remember Goldfinger is the head of the UAW. He was sitting with the three CEOs asking Congress for the bailout loan. He was asking for the GOLD with his own FINGERS. what the hell business is it of yours!!!!...why is that something that bothers you? i really really would like to know .
When it's out tax money funding the D3 due to high costs (much of which is union) then it is very much our business. It bothers me because I want this country to be successful and competitive on a world stage and bailing out failing businesses with my tax dollars is a miserable use of our funds. It weakens the USA.
somebody said that Japan doesn't put tariffs on American cars ,they just don't want that crap over there . . . well how come they will not let GM or Ford BUILD cars there ?
There is no regulation preventing US Automakers from setting up new manufacturing facilities in Japan. But you have to first consider that 1) Japan already has overcapacity (and thus exports cars from Japan); 2) Input costs are much higher in Japan (e.g. land / power etc) as compared to other locations. So it would make sense (for US companies) to export to Japan from lower cost centers, rather than building plants in Japan.
US companies did take equity stakes in Mazda (Ford) and Suzuki / Subaru / Isuzu (GM), which definitely is a better option than setting up new manufacturing plants. The investments worked out well for them, a pity that they had to sell out due to their own internal cash problems (since that forced them to sell at adverse terms) - Renault's investment in Nissan has generated much larger returns.
You may also ask why lower cost imports are not successful in penetrating the Japanese market. Firstly, the safety / emission requirements raise the cost of importing; Secondly Japan already has a very competitive small car market (very few countries have a 600cc capacity segment....). The high end luxury car market is dominated by the Europeans (even beating the Japanese domestic offerings - e.g. Lexus), as I have posted elsewhere before.
i worked with the uaw and these people all of my adult life. they are the real american hereos as far as i'm concerned.
Don't you think you are stretching the word "hero" to the breaking point? Your UAW friends may have been hard working and dedicated, but lets not throw the term hero around so loosely. I know U.S. Marines with bronze stars and purple hearts, they are heroes. Words mean things and I hate to see that word get diluted. Sorry to digress, but that is a pet peeve of mine.
As a UAW employee my self I would not consider my self a hero. I am also a former Army sgt. and that word hero should go to the men and woman of are ARMED FORCES for the sacerfice that they are induring. So if you do see one of are men & woman put out you're hand and say thank you!!
>"Don't you think you are stretching the word "hero" to the breaking point? .....lets not throw the term hero around so loosely.....Words mean things and I hate to see that word get diluted"
another union basher surfaces. i 'll make one more attempt to let facts shed some light on you opinion--i know you've made up your mind, so i shouldn't bother.
There is a difference between Union bashing and pointing out mistakes made by a Union. In this case the UAW. You are very biased in your narrow views on how the World should be. The reality is that the import auto makers are kicking the Big 3's butt on quality and doing it with USA workers. You can bemoan the fact that people will work for less in other states. I was a Union member for 46 years before I retired. I was never as blinded to the faults of the Union as many on this thread are. You expect money to just grow on trees. The UAW has bullied the B3 and especially GM for years. They have had such wimpy management that they did not know how to stand up for the company. To my way of thinking implementing a contract that screws future employees to maintain the status quo for the existing employees is not any kind of concession. Getting rid of the Jobs bank was just common sense.
Now it is your turn to explain something. You seem to be a UAW insider. Why on earth would the UAW strike GM this year when they were bleeding red ink? GM had lost $38 billion dollars and had little hope of making any money this year and the UAW calls for strikes on two of the only plants that were making vehicles that GM was able to sell. If that is not sticking a knife in the back of the company that is paying the bills, I sure do not know what you would call it. Your overall postings further point out the entitlement mentality so prevalent in the UAW workers. Nothing in our Constitution guarantees you a middle class income. Let alone an upper class income that most UAW workers have had for the last 50 years. The UAW worker is NOT MIDDLE CLASS. They are UPPER CLASS. When you make $100k per year you are in the top 5% of wage earners in the USA.
Last I remember Goldfinger is the head of the UAW. He was sitting with the three CEOs asking Congress for the bailout loan. He was asking for the GOLD with his own FINGERS.
That is exactly correct. If it was not for the large donations that the UAW and other Unions give to the Democrats, they would not even be considering loans to the nearly departed GM & Chrysler. The loans are for the UAW workers and NO OTHER REASON.
>"The prevailing wage in any give area is calculated from an average. This very average is kept high by high paying employment. This is but one of the benefits that non union folks get from union/UAW folks, there are more."
Most of the time the extreme highs and extreme lows are thrown out because they may involve specialized segment. Therefore not really considered in the mix.
Any time a business, employing a lot of people, starts up, the surrounding area bennefits. A number of other businesses may move in. Their' pay scale is in competition with each other, not with the new business/factory.
While true that businesses catering to the UAW employees might suffer or close for lack of businesses, when a plant closes, that would happen whether the UAW worker had been making $28 or $15.
Just because the worker at a D3 plant was making a certain pay and got a raise didn't necessarily mean the guy changing tires at the local tire store got an equal raise or bennefits. His compensation would be only be affected by the pay at other tire stores or comparable industries.
Businesses will pay what is necessary to get and retain skilled people for their particular type of work. That is where the "Averages" really fall into play.
I don't buy most argument that the UAW single handedly raised the middle class standard of living for all Americans. It simply raised the standard of living for the UAW workers. When the D3 closes plants, what do those UAW workers find to do to continue their lifestyle? Few companies in the area pay anywhere near the same. Many companies don't really want them because of the union/entitlement attitude.
The prevailing wage in any give area is calculated from an average. This very average is kept high by high paying employment. This is but one of the benefits that non union folks get from union/UAW folks, there are more.
That sounds nice, but all that extra money floating around in the local economy drives up the cost of housing, utilities, taxes, etc., so the non-union folks are no better off than before, and may even be worse off if the numerical inflation of their wages and property pushes them into more punitive tax brackets.
whether Big 3 can build cars in Japan, but I did recently read in one of my "car books", critical of the American auto industry, that years ago, I think it was Gm had the opportunity to sell cars in japan, but they "arrogantly" refused to design their cars with right hand drive...if true, they wonder why Japanese consumers won't buy them???...
I am reading a book now, "The End of Detroit", written about 5-6 years ago...amazing how prescient the book is/was, as tho someone was writing it today...
It seems that anyone and everyone outside of GM/Ford/Chrysler saw this coming 10-20 years ago, and only the BIg 3 stuck their heads in the sand in denial...
Interesting comments about the short tenure of Bob Stempel as Chairman of GM, and what a disaster he was, also sticking his head in the sand...seems that GM was a master at manipulating numbers to make it seem like they were profitable, but they were losing money on every car they made, and failed to learn ANYTHING from the Japanese method of manufacturing and from NUMMI in Fremont, Calif...
What is amazing is that they survived this long losing billions every year, and building cars well in excess of their market share, only to pretend to be Number 1...stupid...
I just read The End of Detroit a month or two ago. It's scary how much of what they were saying then is exactly what they are saying now except now they add "but it can't be helped because of this bad economy."
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
they are non-union thanks to our labor laws which make it extremely difficult to organize workers. (The passage of EFCA should help there; interesting that every transplant has unionized workers in their home countires but choses to adopt the anti-union legacy here) thus their benefit costs have been lower (supplement unemployment, health care, defined benefit plans (pension) legal services, etc) transplants also don't have the enormous legacy costs for past retirees (almost 500,000 at GM alone) that are going to be transferred to the VEBAS. plus they received rather hefty state taxpayer subsidies to locate where they did. again let's not forget that labor costs are about 10% of the product.
yes the domestic auto industry also made some bad decisions but they are doing better.
let's also not forget that while the uaw has a say in terms and conditions of employment they have no say in certain management perogatives. walter reuther asked the big 3 to make a small car in the 50's. he was told in no uncertain terms that he had crossed the line and had better shape up.
now i guess you could argue that the uaw should have (given up) bargained away the difference in benefit costs before now. easier said than done - particularly now. lets not forget that the uaw constitution (not any law), says the membership must ratify its contracts. Plus let's not forget that most of these benefits were negotiated during periods when the auto industry was doing quite well. why or how does the uaw say we will reduce benefits to the level of transplants while the employers are paying the salaried employees and managers rather well and making handsome profits.
ok someone also suggested that when the choice is bankruptcy, why not negotiate away vested benefits (lifetime health care for past retirees). good point! indeed most employers would like to have the ability to bargain about past retirees -hell their gone, can't strike, don't vote for union leadership or ratify contracts piss on the old farts, times are tough indeed that was the big 3 did to their salaried retirees. also think of the temptations at the bargaining table--you want a wage increase for active employes and voting members, how about trading that for reduced retiree benefits? the retirees can't do anything about it let me assure you that such propositions has been put on the bargaining table.
but the uaw has a proud history and culture. retirees are special --very special. yes bankruptcy kills everything and could be worse-but even making a proposal to negotiate away a vested retirement benefit (that was promised to someone after working for 30 years in a factory) would enrage and insult any uaw negotiating committee. if you don't understand the difference between negotiating it away and losing it in bankruptcy--the only analogy i can give you is that of choosing between surrender and being run over by a tank. there are some things you just have to do--bring on you tank.
i still can't seem to reach some people that how the uaw spends its dues money (43 year old black lake education center) is an internal matter not really fairly before the federal government or the taxpayers. yes in congressional hearings, the uaw supported the big 3 requests for bridge loans to keep the plants open. these loan checks or wire transfers were reportedly made out to GM and Chrysler. the uaw has not received any money directly from the us treasury.
ok the big three gets the loan money and start paying creditors,; employees are creditors in that sense-so at the second level, workers benefit from the loans, ok the workers who are uaw members pay dues of 2 hours pay per month to the UAW - so at the thrid level the uaw benefits from the loans, so the uaw gets the dues money and spends some of it to maintain the black lake education center which has been used almost exclusively by uaw members for 40 years. we now have traced the loan through four distinct levels of transfer. IF the loaning entity, the government (or the taxpayers) have the right to question the appropriateness of the expendiiture through 4 levels of disbursement-----then look out. where do we draw the line--fifth level, sixth level. we now have a new form of GENERAL government supervision of all economic decision making called big big brother personified.
if however ron gettlfinger had spoken up in the congressional hearing and said --the uaw needs help too, we are an integral part of this industry and we have lost two thirds of our membership. we have trouble making payroll and paying expenses--could we have a couple of million dollars loaned to us by the taxpayers so we can continue to service our members and administer the contractrs and participate in the needed restructuring of the auto industry. if he had made that request and if our republican senators would have said sure--we have always believed that workers are entitled to a voice in their affairs and theat union are partners in the economy---how many million would you like? or if president bush had told treasury to call up the uaw and ask them how much they would like (by the way i assume you all know that the UAW was stonewalled (not invited) to loan discussions with the big 3 and treasury.)
had this occured --then by all means --jump in-- tell the uaw that the black lake center is too lavish to maintain (dig up walter reuther reuther's ashes and dump the center), that the golf course should be sold first at whatever price you can get.
but gettelfinger didn't ask for any money for the uaw and neither bush nor the southern repukes offered to give a dime directly to the uaw. case closed!!!
so i say again--if the uaw wants to spend its membership dues on education and recreational activities for its members and as long as such expenditures are not illegal--it is none of the government's business and indeed none of the taxpayers' business. if uaw finances get desperate enough, something will have to be done at the black lake center--but that is for the uaw and something called the "unfree market forces" to decide.
the international is the parent part of the UAW-- headquartered at solidarity house in detroit--it has responsibility for all uaw membership (there's one canadian local- since the CAW divorce--so that;s why its still an "international union). the uaw holds convention every three years to elect officers and set policy (like financing the uaw black lake education center from interest on the strike fund)
the uaw has a well deserved reputation for being a clean, democratic union. any member can appeal almost any union decision to an outside Public Review Board composed of non-uaw professors and clergy. Uaw salaries for staff are not lavish. I am not aware that any union officer in its 75 year history has ever been indicted let alone convicted of corruption , fraud or self dealing.
delegates to the uaw conventions are elected by uaw members at the local union level.l
The locals are separate legal entities - usually connected to a single facility--thus local xyz may be located across the street from a big 3 dallas car plant.
labor agreements are negotiated jointly by the international officers and staff and the involved local or if it is a mulitplant contract-- locals. negotiated contracts must be ratified by the membership
but gettelfinger didn't ask for any money for the uaw and neither bush nor the southern repukes offered to give a dime directly to the uaw. case closed!!!
There is no meaningful difference between "give me money" and "give them money so they can give it to me".
but even making a proposal to negotiate away a vested retirement benefit (that was promised to someone after working for 30 years in a factory) would enrage and insult any uaw negotiating committee
Again that shows how ignorant UAW leadership is. I had worked nearly 20 years as a Teamster when the Pension Trust Board of Directors announced that they could no longer fund health care benefits for retirees. They had determined that it would bankrupt the fund at a future date and felt insuring our pension payments into the future was more beneficial than possible failure of the pension fund. I can see from your willingness to bankrupt the system that ideals are more important than fiscal responsibility. At the time the Teamsters dropped retiree health care coverage they also raised the retirement age from 45 to 57. Promises that are open ended are many times hard to keep. When GM goes bankrupt you all are going to wish you had not killed the golden goose. Some people are just hard to reason with.
Why do you feel that the Republicans should be pro UAW? Name me a time the UAW did not support the Democrat no matter how horrible he or she happened to be? Republicans believe healthy businesses are good for the country. Democrats are the elitist controlled by the ultra rich.
The transplants do have an advantage . . . they built all their plants far from big U.S. cities and the problems that some feel . . . go with it.
None of the plants are in the north near big cities.
There are all in right to work states ,weather you like the UAW or not is not the issue they don't want a union so they needed that extra thing ( right to work state ) in their favor.
Most of the GOP senators and congress people that did not want to help the U.S. automakers where from . . . guess where . . . the states that have transplant factories.
Transplants health care cost are lower ,yes they are under the same health plan more or less as U.S. car companies but the transplants have a much younger work force and they use more temporary workers in their factories.
I think most forgien cars on the road in U.S. are not from these transplant factories but still come from overseas.
The Japanese are a very "protective society" that should allow American and European car companies to build cars there,I know one of you gave reasons why this is so but you must admit the Japanese are protective ,otherwise the Europeans and Americans would build cars there ,forget the cost of land in Japan and that it is a small market ,etc. Lets be fair Japan let other car companies make cars in Japan like your companies make worldwide. No strings attached.
As I said Americans keep buying the Japanese cars and never care about these issues.
NO - it is not fair... the unions have gone from being advocates for harshly treated employees to huge, self-serving, entities that do not even seem to CARE what the state of the buisness is they are sucking money out of. Thusly, unions have largely outlived their usefulness.
There is no more money available from Washington... all of our unborn grandchildren have already been put on notice that they owe taxes for the EXISTING "bailouts".
I like my diesel German automobile that gets 700 miles per tank of fuel. I would LOVE to be able to purchse a Dodge Dakota pickup truck with a small detroit-diesel engine. They build them in Brazil... why cant I buy one at my local Dodge dealer??? Because the UNION contracts will not allow it!!
Let the big3 file for chapter11 and burn those union contracts. This is the ONLY long-term solution. Offer cars people want or close the doors.
ok the power companies, the local city and state, the auto parts suppliers --indeed probably have of the businesses in an auto town are creditors of the big 3. they get paid thru some of the loan proceeds. they in turn pay bills to their creditors and so on an so on.
it almost like saying to the bar, party store, or even the golf course across the street from an auto plant. ok we are loaning some money to GM and the employees are going to spend it here.otherwise you will go out of business too. therefore the we the goverment get to tell you how to spend your income and how you should be running your business.
i had one of those old GM refrigerators. That very suave avacado color. Traded 2 good Hartford Whaler hockey tickets to get it. After 10 years or so I gave to a family member, who had it for a few years. It finally died when it got dropped off the truck when he moved.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
I was just Laid off from a contract company ( gm ) that provides technical assistance to dealers. None of my friends even believe that people are laid off / or fired for medical costs, opinions, bathroom breaks, 20 or 30 seconds too long at lunch, illness, accident, fmla, family death's but these are occurring under direct supervision of general motors. Interesting the employer expects 10 minutes a day and sacrificing lunch and for unpaid mandatory training. Big business must be regulated and middle class maintained in this country. If you can make widgets in this country please, do just because you can have children beaten in other countries and make them for 1/2 dont make things any better. I'm not interested in being paid 2.00 per hour just to maintain a global correct pay scale.
the teamsters health and pension funds are defined contribution plans managed by the trustees to provide health and pension funds to retirees. these so called taft hartley plans are very different from defined benefit pension plans or for that matter unfunded lifetime contractual health care promises.
under a defined contribution plan--the way the world is going now-- the understanding is that the employer contributes a fixed amount per hour worked by the employee and the trustees then do the best they can with that. even the retirees are supposed to know that. if investment incomes soars or health care costs go down--hell their benefits could increase!! those employers and unions accepted that risk and should have explained it to their employees/members.
sometimes when the trust funds shrink because wall streets investments go sour or health care costs continue to rise at 20% a year under our stupid health care system (33% of you health care dollars go to insurance companies which generate forms, denials and paper rather than health care).
the UAW and the big 3 went a different direction. The UAW wanted to be able to tell its retirees"ok work 30-35 years and here's what you get"::
thus under a defined benefit pension plan however, the employer says when you retiree you will get X dollars per month and we will start putting in annual contributions which an actuary tells us should be sufficient with trust fund earnings to pay that amount. these plans are rapidly disappearing and our kids are being told that a 401(k) will provide them with money in their retirement. look out kids--there's not single 401(k) intact in the south after katrina since these funds are really savings plans that can be drawn in the event of a financial emergency.
you think things are tough now, wait one more generation and see if you can find an adult able to retire on a pension or an adequate 401(k).
but i digress:
on health care, the Big 3 promised (under contract) "when you retire you will get x level of health care benefits. Gm choose not to state a term so the law would probably imply the term is for your status as a retiree - life. now when GM made this promise health care costs where rather cheap and they anticipated that no country in its right mind would ever let health care costs spiral so out of control that we pay almost 14% of our total GNP for it.(the rest of the worlds national health care system provide better health care outcomes for all citizens at less than half that) How did GM not understand that people of average intelligence could fall for the "socialized medicine" lie? So GM also choose not to fund its contractual promise for retiree health over the working life of that worker but to defer costs to pay as you go status when that worker retired. Fine if you are making money and the workforce is expanding and the health care costs are somewhat stable. GM chose that risk and also strangely lobbied against national health care in line with corporate america's desire for national health care system based almost entirely on employer fiat.
in any event, a worker who started at GM in 1970 and retired in 2005, had a contractual promise for lifetime health benefits- but not backed by either an independent trust fund or a taft hartley trust fund. GM then has to pay for past retirement health care out of current earnings --thus we come up with the crazy number of $70 dollars per hour for a current hourly GM employee. (the ratio of retirees to active workers is about 3-1).
The UAW is not trying to bankrupt GM - how does that benefit either its retirees, its working members or its very existence as a union? But if your proposal is to ask the UAW to agree to terminate health care for retirees who were promised those benefits throughout their working lives, I hope the UAW continues to say no!. bring on the tank!
t almost like saying to the bar, party store, or even the golf course across the street from an auto plant. ok we are loaning some money to GM and the employees are going to spend it here.otherwise you will go out of business too.
The difference being that the GM employees are not contractually obligated to spend that money at the bar, party store, or golf course, nor did those businesses lobby Congress for their patrons to get free money.
so if the GM employee has a contractual or legal obligation to pay someone else and GM gets a loan from the government-- the taxpayer oversight obligation or right to impose conditions attaches to anyone in this second or third level of the disbursement chain. If the GM employee owes local property taxes, state income taxes, has a mortgage obligation, a credit card obligation, etc--oversight of that creditor also attaches through the original loan to the employer. where is this taking us?? i think we are back to case closed!
if i understand your argument it was wrong, or a political mistake anyway, for the uaw to sit at the table with the big three employers supporting the employers' loans requests. if UAW president gettlefinger had stayed home, you would now say it's perfectly ok with you for the uaw to continue its 40 year history of maintaining the uaw black lake education center for use by its own members--but since he supported the loan request--the taxpayers have a right to tell the uaw to close the center..
have i got that right?.
you haven't argued it -but i assume you agree that it is uaw wages and benefits that brought about this bridge loan request from the big 3 employers. that seems to be the common refrain from the right and from the southern republicans. the fact that most observers say the problem is the credit crunch and the near depression we are in and that since at least 2006 the uaw has been negotiating major contract concessions with the BIg three is a fact that is just ignored.
another little factoid that does not register anywhere is that almost every other country is similarly making bridge loans to their domestic auto industries. moreover none of these other loans were conditioned on the hourly workers jumping on the bangladesh wage and benefits express --only the good old usa.
add to this the fact that hourly labor costs are about 10% of product cost. wall street, aig, lehman brother, bear stearns etc --where the taxpayers simply spent or gave the money reportedly have about a 60% employment cost factor. do you see any web blogs or fox news specials or rush/hannity rants on the need to condition these bequests to having wall street brokers and insurance executives also getting on the bangladesh train?. indeed some would even suggest that these six and seven figure white collar types have a greater responsibility for their current situation that the guy installing the transmission on you cadillac.
but since he supported the loan request--the taxpayers have a right to tell the uaw to close the center..
Yep, got it in one.
i assume you agree that it is uaw wages and benefits that brought about this bridge loan request from the big 3 employers.
No, that is the result of management being consistently stupid for several decades in a row. The UAW is at fault only so far as agreeing to the absurd promises management made over the years, and leaving the long-term prospects of the membership in the clumsy hands of that management.
if the 'bank bailout' money had been used to provide credit for individual loans (like it was supposed to) instead of buying up other banks, the B3 might not have needed go to congress for their loans.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
The UAW is not trying to bankrupt GM - how does that benefit either its retirees, its working members or its very existence as a union? But if your proposal is to ask the UAW to agree to terminate health care for retirees who were promised those benefits throughout their working lives, I hope the UAW continues to say no!. bring on the tank!
That is what most Americans believe according to surveys. Explain the UAW motives this Summer when they went on strike against GM for no real good reason. Where do you propose that GM will get the money to keep funding health care. While I put the major blame on the Management of GM for their sheer stupidity signing onto such an agreement. The UAW needs to give a little also. The concessions so far are pathetic and mostly aimed at the new workers. What did a 20 year member lose over the last 10 years on any contract?
It is probably all a moot point for me. As far as I am concerned the 2005 GMC PU I bought that was UAW built will be my last. It was the 5th GM truck since 1988. The rest built in Canada and Mexico were better built. Much of my dislike for the UAW is based on the poor build quality of that last truck. I believe that UAW workers are over paid for the skill level they displayed in building my PU truck.
If you think that Socialized Medicine is so great, you need to move across the border and let US know what you think of the Canadian plan. Most people I talk to from there think it is very poor. I would rather continue to pay my own supplemental at Kaiser, thank you very much.
thus we come up with the crazy number of $70 dollars per hour for a current hourly GM employee. (the ratio of retirees to active workers is about 3-1).
Don't blame the consumer. It was the UAW that agreed to that stupid plan along with GM. What happens when it is 4-1 or 5-1? Then it will be $100 or more per hour. Though I think GM will be history long before that happens.
your logic has convinced me that by supporting the employers and thereby keeping the plants open, the uaw has to stop spending its dues money on it members at the black lake center. . so i will head over to black lake tomorrow and see if i can find walter reuther's ashes from the 1970 ceremony. but we have had almost 60 inches of snow so far this year and it may take me a couple of months.
but once that is done, we can probably get the place real cheap right now. resorts and golf courses in northern michigan haven't been doing all that well under trickle down economics. how's it been for you? maybe we can get a group together from this blog, with my uaw and local connections smoothing the way, we could acquire the 1200 acres for a purchase price of around 6 million (center and the first class golf course). taxable value in 2007 was about 12.6 million
put a couple million into the rooms to make them nice, get rid of the buffet style cafeteria, put in some hot tubs, build some nice condo models around the fairways, dump the overpaid local employees and bring in foreign workers on temp visas, lumber off the good timber.
now if we could get global warming to trigger in perhaps we could stay open longer. alternatively we could doze down a couple of acres and push snowmobiling in the winter.
i can then die knowing my six grandkids (two with severe medical conditions) will be taken care of. my only other request, is that my ashes be spread on the golf course since the locals, my uaw friends and my family may do some bad things on my grave site.
by the way tell that guy that those great GM Frigidaire refrigerators were made by the IUE members in dayton until that plant change over to a truck plant in late 80's. uaw can't take dredit (or be blamed as you would have it) for the GM frigs
"i just realized i was responding to a post from 2007!"...hey, nothing wrong with that...in fact, I think I will go back 2 years, and, thanks to your new post/response, I may have to edit EVERY ONE of my posts since that time...
And I expect that ALL of you will scroll back and read every one, so gagrice can support me and rocky can argue with me...:):):):):)
If the 'bank bailout' money had been used to provide credit for individual loans (like it was supposed to) instead of buying up other banks, the B3 might not have needed go to congress for their loans.
Do you really think that the reason the B3 have to ask for money from the government is because of the banking issues? Do you think that's the only way corporation cean get $ is through a bank? No. The #1 and #2 ways corporations get $ is by selling stock - they can issue new stock, or by issuing bonds. Why doesn't the B3 do so? Because people in the markets will not risk their own $, because the likelihood of making anything is very low, and losing everything is high! The markets have no belief the B3 can ever make any profit given their contracts.
So the ONLY choice for the B3 is the sympathy of the politicians they have paid for through political contributions for years. Oh yes some of the politicians put on a good show lambasting the B3 execs, but many are bought and paid for.
i wasn't at the bargaining table and don't know what the issues where. i guess i could do some research or make some calls but as best i can recall the strike lasted a couple of days at most.
understand this carefully every three years contracts were negotiated promising retirees health coverage during their retirement. the big 3 chose not to fund this promise over the working lives of the employes who received the promise but rather hope for the best--stable health care costs despite our stuidity over national health insurance, and continued growth of the domestic industry--and pay as you go when they retire.
placing the legacy costs onto the current hourly costs of an employee is really not accurate or fair--they are not current costs and indeed have to be paid if GM has no active employees. right now if GM discovers huge oil deposits under all its property and decides to go out of the car business and sell its property to exxon--it is still obligated to these past retirees from their lucky real estate wealth .
however, the big 3 retirees had their health care benefits cut somewhat in 2006 when the uaw re-opened the contracts and negotiated some relief.
to make sure they had the authority to do so, the UAW filed a class action lawsuit in federal court--the retirees then obtained legal representation separate from the union and after court hearing the cutbacks were approved.
in 2007 contract negotiations, the UAW agreed to set up independent trusts called VEBAS to provide for health care for past retirees. the big three would provide funding thru a combination of stock and money equal to about 50 cents on the dollar. once again this was approved by the federal court in detroit after notice to the retirees. recently the uaw agreed to change the mix on the funding and accept more stock and less cash. the vebas will take these legacy costs off the books of the big 3 in 2010 and put the risk on the uaw and independent trustees.
I read your words about comparative health care between the usa and canada. it is standard dittohead nonsense. opps I am not supposed to do name calling so let me just say you speak with forked tongue. Give me the name and phone number of any of these alleged canadian who want to go backwards to our system. I know a few more canadians than you do-eh!. heck most of them live south of me! they laugh about comments like this as they watch the bus loads of american seniors crossing over to buy the same prescription drugs sold profitably in canada for less than 50% of our costs. find me one, just one, national politician or a political party in canada advocating a return to the employer-fiat health model we have.
yes canadians wait for elective surgery--but everyone has coverage and the overall quality of care--in terms of life expectancy, favorable medical outcomes, etc exceeds the usa by a wide margin.
we are the only industrialized country without national health care. we have 46 million americans without health care, are ranked 17th in the world in terms of favorable health care outcomes, have costs going up somewhere between 14% to 20% a year and you say you are pleased with the status quo.
fortunately you are in a very declining minority.americans are not going to be scared with the socialist medicine tag this time. hell i don't care if my doctor, nurse or orderly is a socialist or a methodist. hell i don't even care if my doctor is a republican--he can't help it --he's making a bundle too.
canada spend 7 % of their gnp on a better health care system which provides universal coverage we spend 14-16% of our GNP on an inferior patchwork system with high copays and gaps with 46 million americans (mostly children) falling not between the cracks --but into the chasm
but let's put this into perspective for this debate: the same care made in canada by the same company costs $1800 less to build because they have national health care.
Among 25 countries that have comparable accounting systems in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 2006, the latest year for which data are available, spending per person on health care remained highest in the United States (US$6,714). The U.S. was followed by Norway (US$4,520), Switzerland (US$4,311) and Luxembourg (US$4,303). Canada was in the top fifth of countries in terms of per person spending on health, spending US$3,678 per person, which was similar to seven other OECD countries, including France, Germany, the Netherlands and Austria. The lowest per capita expenditures were seen in Turkey (US$591) and Mexico (US$794).
my numbers were off on the usa/ canad comparison - old data from past speeches.
world heath organization ranks us health care system at 37th in the world . canada is 30th. almost of of socialist europe and even cuba ranks above usa.
canadian life expectancy is a remarkable 3 years ahead of ours. in 2005 canada spent $3,128 per citizen or 9.8% of its GDP on health care. US spent most of anyone $6,401 or 15.3% of GDP.
don't forget we still don't have health care coverage for 46 million americans.
bring on that socialized medicine while i am still alive please!
but they "arrogantly" refused to design their cars with right hand drive..
I can vouch for this one - One of my friends had a Cadillac (bought new in late 80s), and he would have to put the car in Park, then slide over to pay express way / parking meter tolls
However, there was another - and in my mind, bigger - problem that the US companies did not address initially. This was the lack of a nationwide dealer / servicing network (a must, when competing with the domestics here) leading them to focus mostly on high end sales in big cities (where they ran up against the Germans). Compounded with the reliability issue at that time, it is easy to see why it did not work out. Nothing to do with the tariff barriers here (after the market was opened in the mid 80s).
At that time, the market was also opened for semiconductors and financial services. Intel, TI and the US investment banks went on to take large market shares, and one does not hear them complaining about the "protective barriers".
Not to say that Japan is as open as the US. There are tariff barriers on agricultural products, construction materials etc, but these are areas where Japan is not competitive internationally (hence the protection - though people like me would say it BECAUSE of it....).
2007 national strike. This one was over the reducing of beni's and wages that GM needed to survive. Very expensive nation wide shutdown.
The United Auto Workers union launched a nationwide strike against General Motors on Monday as 73,000 UAW members walked off the job and hit the picket lines at the nation's largest automaker.
UAW President Ron Gettelfinger blasted GM management, saying that the company had not been willing to meet the union part way in negotiations.
"This is nothing we wanted," he said about the strike. "No one benefits in a strike. But there comes a point where someone can push you off a cliff. That's what happened here."
Company officials did not respond to Gettelfinger's comments, other than to say they were disappointed that the first national strike against the company in more than 37 years had been called, and that they hoped that an agreement to end the walkout could be reached soon.
Gettelfinger said at the midday press conference that the union is ready to discuss the company's key bargaining goal of shifting an estimated $51 billion in healthcare expenses for retirees and their family members to union-controlled trust funds. But he said that other issues had derailed hopes of an agreement.
The union president said he was looking for assurances from the company about the job security of UAW members. He said he wanted guarantees about how much GM would invest in U.S. plants and about how many new vehicles would be built in the United States.
The UAW has seen its membership at GM plummet by 70 percent since 1994, as the automaker dumped its parts unit and closed plants to try to align its production more in line with its shrinking U.S. market share.
Outcome of strike
A new labor contract was ratified by UAW members exactly one week after the tentative agreement was reached, passing by a majority 62% vote. In the contract are several product and employment guarantees stretching well into the next decade. One of GM's key future products, the Chevy Volt, was promised to the GM Poletown/Detroit-Hamtramck plant in 2010. Also included is a VEBA (Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association) which will transfer retiree health care obligations to the UAW by 2010. This eliminates more than 50 billion dollars from GM's healthcare tab. It will be funded by 30 billion in cash and 1.4 billion in GM stock paid to the UAW over the next 4 years of the contract. It also eliminates 70% of the labor cost gap with GM's Japanese rivals.
This strike had nothing to do with the rules at GM. A supplier to GM was on strike and the GM UAW shut down the 2 plants that were working at full production in order to force GM to force the supplier to meet the UAW demands. This strike cost GM almost $3 billion. Sure would like to have that money now.
General Motors workers who build the Chevrolet Malibu, one of G.M.’s most popular and important new vehicles, went on strike Monday at a plant in Kansas after they were unable to reach an agreement with the company on local work rules.
Union members walked a picket line outside the General Motors Fairfax Assembly plant in Fairfax, Kan., on Monday. The plant is one of two that make the redesigned Chevrolet Malibu.
It is the second strike by a United Automobile Workers local against G.M. this spring after a decade without any single-plant work stoppages. Workers at a plant that builds crossover vehicles, which are big sellers for G.M., near Lansing, Mich., have been on strike for nearly three weeks. Together, the plants employ about 4,500 people.
The two walkouts are in addition to a long strike at one of G.M.’s parts suppliers, American Axle and Manufacturing, which forced G.M. to close many of its truck and sport utility vehicle factories in March and April.
Though U.A.W. officials deny it, some labor experts say that the union is singling out critical G.M. plants for strikes in hopes that G.M. will prod American Axle to reach a deal with its workers.
“It’s very rare that you get strikes on issues like this,” Professor Chaison said. “They’re trying all ways possible to put pressure on American Axle, having found themselves at a disadvantageous position in that strike. They’re still showing that they’re a party that must be reckoned with, that they still have some influence and leverage in negotiations.”
Comments
another union basher surfaces. i 'll make one more attempt to let facts shed some light on you opinion--i know you've made up your mind, so i shouldn't bother.
yes the golf course loses money--michigan economy and domestic auto industry has been going down the drain since NAFTA (clinton i know) and the great decider made another run at trickle down economics.(you can add that every other foreign auto mfgrg has national health insurance which gives them a cost advantage of about $2000 a car over us because the repukes are afraid of socialized medicine when 46 million uninsured americans just want medicine.)
but i digress
black lake is probably too good a course for this side of the state (the east or blue collar side so to speak) the lake michigan side is where the money is together with a the best collection of courses - which is what most heavy golfers want--a collection of great links.
the public rate at black lake is $95 a round. as a UAW retiree I get a 30% discount. just the same i am not that good a golfer and i don't golf that often.
for over 40 years, the center itself has been well used by rank and file members and their families. the uaw pays their costs, rooms and meals -- with interest from the uaw strike fund. when oh when will the union bashers get it thru their skull the key fact that none of the federal bridge loan money is going to the uaw. the uaw is not asking anyone for a loan or a bailout. the uaw members have approved this use of their dues money for this center, including its golf course.
it may well be that the center is too expensive to run or the golf course is not used enough or its fees are too high. but since we (the UAW) are not asking you the taxpayer for a dime--what the hell business is it of yours!!!!. the union funds are not being used for something illegal or immoral. hell every household in america is currently spending $120 a month for the iraq war and that doesn't seem to upset you.
again, it is our dues money and if we want to let our members AND their families go to a beautiful training/education center with a golf course--why is that something that bothers you? i really really would like to know .
perhaps you would prefer that we use it to hire more uaw organizers or authorize more strikes.
the center has a total book value of 33 million course was built in 1998-99 for $6 million, which is part of this BOOK VALUE. book value is what it cost you to acquire and improve a piece of property. buildings depreciate somewhat over 42 years of use. market value is somewhat related to taxable value in michigan. perhaps you just came out of deep coma and have not yet learned that property values have been tanking dramatically for several years, particularly golf courses and 2nd home or resort property
thus thousands of property owners in michigan are challenging their tax assessments contending that the assessment are too high. why is the uaw ENTITLED to the same right of review that a corporate owner of the same type of property could secure.
is any of this sinking in--do you see that problem here is really with your own bias rather than any reasonable concept of right and wrong.?
Gettlefinger was before Congress side by side with Mulally, Wagoner and Nardelli. They were all asking for the auto bailout. That got the taxpayer's attention.
another union basher who does not know the facts but has a firm opinion:
did you know that the uaw re-opened its big three agreements in 2006 to give the auto companies relief on retiree health care costs. did you know that the current 2007 big 3 agreements provides for new hires at about $!5 an hour with greatly reduced health care, and 401(K) savigns plans instead of pensions. did you know that the UAW agreed to set up VEBA's (independent trust funds) to totally shift the so-called legacy costs from the employers (billions in retiree health care costs that were contractually promised by these companies). did you know that the again UAW agreed to re-open these contracts right now to address more reductions (job banks, etc.)
well know you do know a little bit of the story and your apology is accepted!
There's no need to make it personal or call people names.
Ron Gettlefinger was there to support the Big Three's request for bridge loans to be provided to the BIG 3 so that these companies could stay open until the worldwide credit crunch eases up. jobs and lives were on the line and he did a hellava job and he flew commercial. i'll let you in on another little fact. gettlefinger is asked to be a luncheon speak at the center about twice a month. the center is 300 miles from soldiarity house. he gets up early drives to the center has lunch buffet style in the "lavish resort" with the other rank and file members and then gets in his still warm car and drives the five hours back by himself to detroit. yeh just another union fat cat to most who have opinions but actually know very little
in any event, the taxpayers have the absolute right to ask both the big three employers and the uaw what they are going to do to restructure the domestic auto industry. they also have the right to ask the debtors (the big 3 not the uaw) how the debt is going to be repaid. but the taxpayer has no right to ask the uaw to stop spending UAW dues money on its own members.
I say again ( as i think you all know rather well) at no time has the uaw asked you or the taxpayers generally for a dime or a loan for continuing uaw operations or maintaining the uaw center at black lake.. You may not want to accept or believe it but the UAW is a seperate entity from Ford Chrysler and GM.
I remember sitting in on a deposition of a chrysler vp tom minor some years ago. the lawyer asked something like "when or why did you give this particular benefit to the UAW' he exploded "listen sonny we never GAVE the uaw a dam thing" sometimes they negotiated hard and traded for some stuff we wanted, other times they put our feet to the fire and said your making millions in profits and we want you to share more of it with your employees--but we never GAVE the UAW anything!!"
but when i see things like 'let them die the slow agonizing death they have chosen. just don't ask me to subsidize it" i tend to take it very personally.
what is there about some people that despise the idea of factory workers making a good living while ignoring things like tax cuts favoring the rich and powerful?
i worked with the uaw and these people all of my adult life. they are the real american hereos as far as i'm concerned.
I still remember my first week in the labor pool at the GM Fleetwood plant. an old timer came to me and said "sonny the pay and the benefits are great but go back to school before you get sucked in. factory work is mind numbing and boring--get out before you get stuck" I did thank god!.
This may be one to watch:
"SEOUL, South Korea — Unionized workers at Ssangyong Motor began voting Monday on whether to strike if management demands massive job cuts as part of a restructuring of the ailing South Korean automaker."
Ssangyong Motor workers vote on strike (Idaho Statesman)
Well the bailouts are taxpayer money since no bank will loan the auto companies the money, isn't that correct? And Gettlefinger was at the table with the CEOs asking for the money. This is taxpayer money, yours and mine, being loaned to a very risky set of borrowers.
What is "running the international"?
I agree that the overall wage base sets the market. The unions have helped this. But we are now competing internationally. The J3 and others are making vehicles profitably in the USA. I don't see them having trouble hiring workers or making quality products. Since even the UAW wants the D3 to be successful, what is the magic formula that allows the D3 to get on their feet again? Even if they get bridge loans during the extended economic downturn, they are losing market share. Where are the products that beat the competition?
Well the Japanese companies making cars in this country have employees that have health care? How do they accomplish that? Perhaps the US workers contribute more? So that price advantage is going into the pockets of the UAW. Problem is that then the cars aren't priced competitively. That's not going to work out in the long term.
But UAW will never NEVER ever negotiate away a vested benefit.
Well the reality could end up being a choice:
a - negotiate away a vested benefit; or
b - company goes bankrupt and then you get NOTHING.
Which is better?
No disagreement. The only issue (supposedly) was time - we were so closed to economic collapse in October that there was not time for long negotiations. (Not sure I believe that).
the credit crunch has affected all worldwide auto companies but this country and its repubs are the only ones demanding that hourly workers race to the bottom to the level of non-union transplants.--why are the transplants the standards for fair wages and benefits anyway--and why stop there, how low are the mexican and south korean rates?? soon we can go down to china rates and then finally the repubs may be happy.
Well the transplants are making money IN THIS COUNTRY, so that's why we don't look at China. Approximately 50% of the auto production in this country is successful and making money, what is the common denominator of the failing companies vs. the successful companies? It is the UAW.
There is a very plausible explanation that the reason the D3 have been losing market share and failing is that they have high structural costs, they have high labor costs, they have cheapened their product to make up for the high costs of their labor, and as a result they are dismal failures. If we are going to endanger $Billions more of taxpayer dollars we deserve to see a good chance for success, correct?
If the UAW is a significant (not the only) part of the problem, then that is one aspect of D3 operations that should change to allow for likely success. If the D3 don't like the conditions they certainly don't have to take the loan.
We keep hearing this -- is there a web citation that give details or shows that this is true? Perhaps manegi can comment from Japan.
So the UAW is running a golf course that loses money while Goldfinger testifies to Congress to get taxpayer money?
every other foreign auto mfgrg has national health insurance which gives them a cost advantage of about $2000 a car
Wrong. The transplant companies in the US make 50% of our automobiles and they don't have nationalized health care, yet they are profitable. Honda Civics made here, no nationalized health care. Toyota Camrys made here, no nationalized health care. BMW SUVs made here, no nationalized health care. Hyundai's made here, no nationalized health care. Half of US auto manufacturing is profitable, here, without nationalized health care - just not the UAW companies.
when oh when will the union bashers get it thru their skull the key fact that none of the federal bridge loan money is going to the uaw.
Well if the reason the D3 are not cost-competitive is because of the union, then indirectly the bailout IS going to the union. The bailout supports D3 operations so that the D3 can continue to fund Union benefits.
the uaw is not asking anyone for a loan or a bailout
Last I remember Goldfinger is the head of the UAW. He was sitting with the three CEOs asking Congress for the bailout loan. He was asking for the GOLD with his own FINGERS.
what the hell business is it of yours!!!!...why is that something that bothers you? i really really would like to know .
When it's out tax money funding the D3 due to high costs (much of which is union) then it is very much our business. It bothers me because I want this country to be successful and competitive on a world stage and bailing out failing businesses with my tax dollars is a miserable use of our funds. It weakens the USA.
There is no regulation preventing US Automakers from setting up new manufacturing facilities in Japan. But you have to first consider that 1) Japan already has overcapacity (and thus exports cars from Japan); 2) Input costs are much higher in Japan (e.g. land / power etc) as compared to other locations. So it would make sense (for US companies) to export to Japan from lower cost centers, rather than building plants in Japan.
US companies did take equity stakes in Mazda (Ford) and Suzuki / Subaru / Isuzu (GM), which definitely is a better option than setting up new manufacturing plants. The investments worked out well for them, a pity that they had to sell out due to their own internal cash problems (since that forced them to sell at adverse terms) - Renault's investment in Nissan has generated much larger returns.
You may also ask why lower cost imports are not successful in penetrating the Japanese market. Firstly, the safety / emission requirements raise the cost of importing; Secondly Japan already has a very competitive small car market (very few countries have a 600cc capacity segment....). The high end luxury car market is dominated by the Europeans (even beating the Japanese domestic offerings - e.g. Lexus), as I have posted elsewhere before.
Don't you think you are stretching the word "hero" to the breaking point? Your UAW friends may have been hard working and dedicated, but lets not throw the term hero around so loosely. I know U.S. Marines with bronze stars and purple hearts, they are heroes. Words mean things and I hate to see that word get diluted. Sorry to digress, but that is a pet peeve of mine.
I am also a former Army sgt. and that word hero should go to the men and woman of are ARMED FORCES for the sacerfice that they are induring. So if you do see one of are men & woman put out you're hand and say thank you!!
Good Post!
There is a difference between Union bashing and pointing out mistakes made by a Union. In this case the UAW. You are very biased in your narrow views on how the World should be. The reality is that the import auto makers are kicking the Big 3's butt on quality and doing it with USA workers. You can bemoan the fact that people will work for less in other states. I was a Union member for 46 years before I retired. I was never as blinded to the faults of the Union as many on this thread are. You expect money to just grow on trees. The UAW has bullied the B3 and especially GM for years. They have had such wimpy management that they did not know how to stand up for the company. To my way of thinking implementing a contract that screws future employees to maintain the status quo for the existing employees is not any kind of concession. Getting rid of the Jobs bank was just common sense.
Now it is your turn to explain something. You seem to be a UAW insider. Why on earth would the UAW strike GM this year when they were bleeding red ink? GM had lost $38 billion dollars and had little hope of making any money this year and the UAW calls for strikes on two of the only plants that were making vehicles that GM was able to sell. If that is not sticking a knife in the back of the company that is paying the bills, I sure do not know what you would call it. Your overall postings further point out the entitlement mentality so prevalent in the UAW workers. Nothing in our Constitution guarantees you a middle class income. Let alone an upper class income that most UAW workers have had for the last 50 years. The UAW worker is NOT MIDDLE CLASS. They are UPPER CLASS. When you make $100k per year you are in the top 5% of wage earners in the USA.
That is exactly correct. If it was not for the large donations that the UAW and other Unions give to the Democrats, they would not even be considering loans to the nearly departed GM & Chrysler. The loans are for the UAW workers and NO OTHER REASON.
Most of the time the extreme highs and extreme lows are thrown out because they may involve specialized segment. Therefore not really considered in the mix.
Any time a business, employing a lot of people, starts up, the surrounding area bennefits. A number of other businesses may move in. Their' pay scale is in competition with each other, not with the new business/factory.
While true that businesses catering to the UAW employees might suffer or close for lack of businesses, when a plant closes, that would happen whether the UAW worker had been making $28 or $15.
Just because the worker at a D3 plant was making a certain pay and got a raise didn't necessarily mean the guy changing tires at the local tire store got an equal raise or bennefits. His compensation would be only be affected by the pay at other tire stores or comparable industries.
Businesses will pay what is necessary to get and retain skilled people for their particular type of work. That is where the "Averages" really fall into play.
I don't buy most argument that the UAW single handedly raised the middle class standard of living for all Americans. It simply raised the standard of living for the UAW workers. When the D3 closes plants, what do those UAW workers find to do to continue their lifestyle? Few companies in the area pay anywhere near the same. Many companies don't really want them because of the union/entitlement attitude.
And yes there are always exceptions.
Kip
That sounds nice, but all that extra money floating around in the local economy drives up the cost of housing, utilities, taxes, etc., so the non-union folks are no better off than before, and may even be worse off if the numerical inflation of their wages and property pushes them into more punitive tax brackets.
I am reading a book now, "The End of Detroit", written about 5-6 years ago...amazing how prescient the book is/was, as tho someone was writing it today...
It seems that anyone and everyone outside of GM/Ford/Chrysler saw this coming 10-20 years ago, and only the BIg 3 stuck their heads in the sand in denial...
Interesting comments about the short tenure of Bob Stempel as Chairman of GM, and what a disaster he was, also sticking his head in the sand...seems that GM was a master at manipulating numbers to make it seem like they were profitable, but they were losing money on every car they made, and failed to learn ANYTHING from the Japanese method of manufacturing and from NUMMI in Fremont, Calif...
What is amazing is that they survived this long losing billions every year, and building cars well in excess of their market share, only to pretend to be Number 1...stupid...
yes the transplants have done well.
they are non-union thanks to our labor laws which make it extremely difficult to organize workers. (The passage of EFCA should help there; interesting that every transplant has unionized workers in their home countires but choses to adopt the anti-union legacy here) thus their benefit costs have been lower (supplement unemployment, health care, defined benefit plans (pension) legal services, etc) transplants also don't have the enormous legacy costs for past retirees (almost 500,000 at GM alone) that are going to be transferred to the VEBAS. plus they received rather hefty state taxpayer subsidies to locate where they did. again let's not forget that labor costs are about 10% of the product.
yes the domestic auto industry also made some bad decisions but they are doing better.
let's also not forget that while the uaw has a say in terms and conditions of employment they have no say in certain management perogatives. walter reuther asked the big 3 to make a small car in the 50's. he was told in no uncertain terms that he had crossed the line and had better shape up.
now i guess you could argue that the uaw should have (given up) bargained away the difference in benefit costs before now. easier said than done - particularly now. lets not forget that the uaw constitution (not any law), says the membership must ratify its contracts. Plus let's not forget that most of these benefits were negotiated during periods when the auto industry was doing quite well. why or how does the uaw say we will reduce benefits to the level of transplants while the employers are paying the salaried employees and managers rather well and making handsome profits.
ok someone also suggested that when the choice is bankruptcy, why not negotiate away vested benefits (lifetime health care for past retirees). good point!
indeed most employers would like to have the ability to bargain about past retirees -hell their gone, can't strike, don't vote for union leadership or ratify contracts piss on the old farts, times are tough indeed that was the big 3 did to their salaried retirees. also think of the temptations at the bargaining table--you want a wage increase for active employes and voting members, how about trading that for reduced retiree benefits? the retirees can't do anything about it let me assure you that such propositions has been put on the bargaining table.
but the uaw has a proud history and culture. retirees are special --very special. yes bankruptcy kills everything and could be worse-but even making a proposal to negotiate away a vested retirement benefit (that was promised to someone after working for 30 years in a factory) would enrage and insult any uaw negotiating committee. if you don't understand the difference between negotiating it away and losing it in bankruptcy--the only analogy i can give you is that of choosing between surrender and being run over by a tank. there are some things you just have to do--bring on you tank.
i still can't seem to reach some people that how the uaw spends its dues money (43 year old black lake education center) is an internal matter not really fairly before the federal government or the taxpayers. yes in congressional hearings, the uaw supported the big 3 requests for bridge loans to keep the plants open. these loan checks or wire transfers were reportedly made out to GM and Chrysler. the uaw has not received any money directly from the us treasury.
ok the big three gets the loan money and start paying creditors,; employees are creditors in that sense-so at the second level, workers benefit from the loans, ok the workers who are uaw members pay dues of 2 hours pay per month to the UAW - so at the thrid level the uaw benefits from the loans, so the uaw gets the dues money and spends some of it to maintain the black lake education center which has been used almost exclusively by uaw members for 40 years. we now have traced the loan through four distinct levels of transfer. IF the loaning entity, the government (or the taxpayers) have the right to question the appropriateness of the expendiiture through 4 levels of disbursement-----then look out. where do we draw the line--fifth level, sixth level. we now have a new form of GENERAL government supervision of all economic decision making called big big brother personified.
if however ron gettlfinger had spoken up in the congressional hearing and said --the uaw needs help too, we are an integral part of this industry and we have lost two thirds of our membership. we have trouble making payroll and paying expenses--could we have a couple of million dollars loaned to us by the taxpayers so we can continue to service our members and administer the contractrs and participate in the needed restructuring of the auto industry. if he had made that request and if our republican senators would have said sure--we have always believed that workers are entitled to a voice in their affairs and theat union are partners in the economy---how many million would you like?
or if president bush had told treasury to call up the uaw and ask them how much they would like (by the way i assume you all know that the UAW was stonewalled (not invited) to loan discussions with the big 3 and treasury.)
had this occured --then by all means --jump in-- tell the uaw that the black lake center is too lavish to maintain (dig up walter reuther reuther's ashes and dump the center), that the golf course should be sold first at whatever price you can get.
but gettelfinger didn't ask for any money for the uaw and neither bush nor the southern repukes offered to give a dime directly to the uaw. case closed!!!
so i say again--if the uaw wants to spend its membership dues on education and recreational activities for its members and as long as such expenditures are not illegal--it is none of the government's business and indeed none of the taxpayers' business. if uaw finances get desperate enough, something will have to be done at the black lake center--but that is for the uaw and something called the "unfree market forces" to decide.
the international is the parent part of the UAW-- headquartered at solidarity house in detroit--it has responsibility for all uaw membership (there's one canadian local- since the CAW divorce--so that;s why its still an "international union). the uaw holds convention every three years to elect officers and set policy (like financing the uaw black lake education center from interest on the strike fund)
the uaw has a well deserved reputation for being a clean, democratic union. any member can appeal almost any union decision to an outside Public Review Board composed of non-uaw professors and clergy. Uaw salaries for staff are not lavish. I am not aware that any union officer in its 75 year history has ever been indicted let alone convicted of corruption , fraud or self dealing.
delegates to the uaw conventions are elected by uaw members at the local union level.l
The locals are separate legal entities - usually connected to a single facility--thus local xyz may be located across the street from a big 3 dallas car plant.
labor agreements are negotiated jointly by the international officers and staff and the involved local or if it is a mulitplant contract-- locals. negotiated contracts must be ratified by the membership
There is no meaningful difference between "give me money" and "give them money so they can give it to me".
Again that shows how ignorant UAW leadership is. I had worked nearly 20 years as a Teamster when the Pension Trust Board of Directors announced that they could no longer fund health care benefits for retirees. They had determined that it would bankrupt the fund at a future date and felt insuring our pension payments into the future was more beneficial than possible failure of the pension fund. I can see from your willingness to bankrupt the system that ideals are more important than fiscal responsibility. At the time the Teamsters dropped retiree health care coverage they also raised the retirement age from 45 to 57. Promises that are open ended are many times hard to keep. When GM goes bankrupt you all are going to wish you had not killed the golden goose. Some people are just hard to reason with.
Why do you feel that the Republicans should be pro UAW? Name me a time the UAW did not support the Democrat no matter how horrible he or she happened to be? Republicans believe healthy businesses are good for the country. Democrats are the elitist controlled by the ultra rich.
None of the plants are in the north near big cities.
There are all in right to work states ,weather you like the UAW or not is not the issue they don't want a union so they needed that extra thing ( right to work state ) in their favor.
Most of the GOP senators and congress people that did not want to help the U.S. automakers where from . . . guess where . . . the states that have transplant factories.
Transplants health care cost are lower ,yes they are under the same health plan more or less as U.S. car companies but the transplants have a much younger work force and they use more temporary workers in their factories.
I think most forgien cars on the road in U.S. are not from these transplant factories but still come from overseas.
The Japanese are a very "protective society" that should allow American and European car companies to build cars there,I know one of you gave reasons why this is so but you must admit the Japanese are protective ,otherwise the Europeans and Americans would build cars there ,forget the cost of land in Japan and that it is a small market ,etc.
Lets be fair Japan let other car companies make cars in Japan like your companies make worldwide.
No strings attached.
As I said Americans keep buying the Japanese cars and never care about these issues.
There is no more money available from Washington... all of our unborn grandchildren have already been put on notice that they owe taxes for the EXISTING "bailouts".
I like my diesel German automobile that gets 700 miles per tank of fuel. I would LOVE to be able to purchse a Dodge Dakota pickup truck with a small detroit-diesel engine. They build them in Brazil... why cant I buy one at my local Dodge dealer??? Because the UNION contracts will not allow it!!
Let the big3 file for chapter11 and burn those union contracts. This is the ONLY long-term solution. Offer cars people want or close the doors.
ok the power companies, the local city and state, the auto parts suppliers --indeed probably have of the businesses in an auto town are creditors of the big 3. they get paid thru some of the loan proceeds. they in turn pay bills to their creditors and so on an so on.
it almost like saying to the bar, party store, or even the golf course across the street from an auto plant. ok we are loaning some money to GM and the employees are going to spend it here.otherwise you will go out of business too. therefore the we the goverment get to tell you how to spend your income and how you should be running your business.
under a defined contribution plan--the way the world is going now-- the understanding is that the employer contributes a fixed amount per hour worked by the employee and the trustees then do the best they can with that. even the retirees are supposed to know that. if investment incomes soars or health care costs go down--hell their benefits could increase!! those employers and unions accepted that risk and should have explained it to their employees/members.
sometimes when the trust funds shrink because wall streets investments go sour or health care costs continue to rise at 20% a year under our stupid health care system (33% of you health care dollars go to insurance companies which generate forms, denials and paper rather than health care).
the UAW and the big 3 went a different direction. The UAW wanted to be able to tell its retirees"ok work 30-35 years and here's what you get"::
thus under a defined benefit pension plan however, the employer says when you retiree you will get X dollars per month and we will start putting in annual contributions which an actuary tells us should be sufficient with trust fund earnings to pay that amount. these plans are rapidly disappearing and our kids are being told that a 401(k) will provide them with money in their retirement. look out kids--there's not single 401(k) intact in the south after katrina since these funds are really savings plans that can be drawn in the event of a financial emergency.
you think things are tough now, wait one more generation and see if you can find an adult able to retire on a pension or an adequate 401(k).
but i digress:
on health care, the Big 3 promised (under contract) "when you retire you will get x level of health care benefits. Gm choose not to state a term so the law would probably imply the term is for your status as a retiree - life. now when GM made this promise health care costs where rather cheap and they anticipated that no country in its right mind would ever let health care costs spiral so out of control that we pay almost 14% of our total GNP for it.(the rest of the worlds national health care system provide better health care outcomes for all citizens at less than half that) How did GM not understand that people of average intelligence could fall for the "socialized medicine" lie? So GM also choose not to fund its contractual promise for retiree health over the working life of that worker but to defer costs to pay as you go status when that worker retired. Fine if you are making money and the workforce is expanding and the health care costs are somewhat stable. GM chose that risk and also strangely lobbied against national health care in line with corporate america's desire for national health care system based almost entirely on employer fiat.
in any event, a worker who started at GM in 1970 and retired in 2005, had a contractual promise for lifetime health benefits- but not backed by either an independent trust fund or a taft hartley trust fund. GM then has to pay for past retirement health care out of current earnings --thus we come up with the crazy number of $70 dollars per hour for a current hourly GM employee. (the ratio of retirees to active workers is about 3-1).
The UAW is not trying to bankrupt GM - how does that benefit either its retirees, its working members or its very existence as a union? But if your proposal is to ask the UAW to agree to terminate health care for retirees who were promised those benefits throughout their working lives, I hope the UAW continues to say no!. bring on the tank!
The difference being that the GM employees are not contractually obligated to spend that money at the bar, party store, or golf course, nor did those businesses lobby Congress for their patrons to get free money.
so if the GM employee has a contractual or legal obligation to pay someone else and GM gets a loan from the government-- the taxpayer oversight obligation or right to impose conditions attaches to anyone in this second or third level of the disbursement chain. If the GM employee owes local property taxes, state income taxes, has a mortgage obligation, a credit card obligation, etc--oversight of that creditor also attaches through the original loan to the employer. where is this taking us?? i think we are back to case closed!
if i understand your argument it was wrong, or a political mistake anyway, for the uaw to sit at the table with the big three employers supporting the employers' loans requests. if UAW president gettlefinger had stayed home, you would now say it's perfectly ok with you for the uaw to continue its 40 year history of maintaining the uaw black lake education center for use by its own members--but since he supported the loan request--the taxpayers have a right to tell the uaw to close the center..
have i got that right?.
you haven't argued it -but i assume you agree that it is uaw wages and benefits that brought about this bridge loan request from the big 3 employers. that seems to be the common refrain from the right and from the southern republicans. the fact that most observers say the problem is the credit crunch and the near depression we are in and that since at least 2006 the uaw has been negotiating major contract concessions with the BIg three is a fact that is just ignored.
another little factoid that does not register anywhere is that almost every other country is similarly making bridge loans to their domestic auto industries. moreover none of these other loans were conditioned on the hourly workers jumping on the bangladesh wage and benefits express --only the good old usa.
add to this the fact that hourly labor costs are about 10% of product cost. wall street, aig, lehman brother, bear stearns etc --where the taxpayers simply spent or gave the money reportedly have about a 60% employment cost factor. do you see any web blogs or fox news specials or rush/hannity rants on the need to condition these bequests to having wall street brokers and insurance executives also getting on the bangladesh train?. indeed some would even suggest that these six and seven figure white collar types have a greater responsibility for their current situation that the guy installing the transmission on you cadillac.
Yep, got it in one.
i assume you agree that it is uaw wages and benefits that brought about this bridge loan request from the big 3 employers.
No, that is the result of management being consistently stupid for several decades in a row. The UAW is at fault only so far as agreeing to the absurd promises management made over the years, and leaving the long-term prospects of the membership in the clumsy hands of that management.
That is what most Americans believe according to surveys. Explain the UAW motives this Summer when they went on strike against GM for no real good reason. Where do you propose that GM will get the money to keep funding health care. While I put the major blame on the Management of GM for their sheer stupidity signing onto such an agreement. The UAW needs to give a little also. The concessions so far are pathetic and mostly aimed at the new workers. What did a 20 year member lose over the last 10 years on any contract?
It is probably all a moot point for me. As far as I am concerned the 2005 GMC PU I bought that was UAW built will be my last. It was the 5th GM truck since 1988. The rest built in Canada and Mexico were better built. Much of my dislike for the UAW is based on the poor build quality of that last truck. I believe that UAW workers are over paid for the skill level they displayed in building my PU truck.
If you think that Socialized Medicine is so great, you need to move across the border and let US know what you think of the Canadian plan. Most people I talk to from there think it is very poor. I would rather continue to pay my own supplemental at Kaiser, thank you very much.
thus we come up with the crazy number of $70 dollars per hour for a current hourly GM employee. (the ratio of retirees to active workers is about 3-1).
Don't blame the consumer. It was the UAW that agreed to that stupid plan along with GM. What happens when it is 4-1 or 5-1? Then it will be $100 or more per hour. Though I think GM will be history long before that happens.
.
so i will head over to black lake tomorrow and see if i can find walter reuther's ashes from the 1970 ceremony. but we have had almost 60 inches of snow so far this year and it may take me a couple of months.
but once that is done, we can probably get the place real cheap right now.
resorts and golf courses in northern michigan haven't been doing all that well under trickle down economics. how's it been for you?
maybe we can get a group together from this blog, with my uaw and local connections smoothing the way, we could acquire the 1200 acres for a purchase price of around 6 million (center and the first class golf course). taxable value in 2007 was about 12.6 million
put a couple million into the rooms to make them nice, get rid of the buffet style cafeteria, put in some hot tubs, build some nice condo models around the fairways, dump the overpaid local employees and bring in foreign workers on temp visas, lumber off the good timber.
now if we could get global warming to trigger in perhaps we could stay open longer. alternatively we could doze down a couple of acres and push snowmobiling in the winter.
i can then die knowing my six grandkids (two with severe medical conditions) will be taken care of. my only other request, is that my ashes be spread on the golf course since the locals, my uaw friends and my family may do some bad things on my grave site.
by the way tell that guy that those great GM Frigidaire refrigerators were made by the IUE members in dayton until that plant change over to a truck plant in late 80's. uaw can't take dredit (or be blamed as you would have it) for the GM frigs
And I expect that ALL of you will scroll back and read every one, so gagrice can support me and rocky can argue with me...:):):):):)
Do you really think that the reason the B3 have to ask for money from the government is because of the banking issues? Do you think that's the only way corporation cean get $ is through a bank? No. The #1 and #2 ways corporations get $ is by selling stock - they can issue new stock, or by issuing bonds. Why doesn't the B3 do so? Because people in the markets will not risk their own $, because the likelihood of making anything is very low, and losing everything is high! The markets have no belief the B3 can ever make any profit given their contracts.
So the ONLY choice for the B3 is the sympathy of the politicians they have paid for through political contributions for years. Oh yes some of the politicians put on a good show lambasting the B3 execs, but many are bought and paid for.
And I'll do a little of each. No problem. Let me know when you've done it....
understand this carefully every three years contracts were negotiated promising retirees health coverage during their retirement. the big 3 chose not to fund this promise over the working lives of the employes who received the promise but rather hope for the best--stable health care costs despite our stuidity over national health insurance, and continued growth of the domestic industry--and pay as you go when they retire.
placing the legacy costs onto the current hourly costs of an employee is really not accurate or fair--they are not current costs and indeed have to be paid if GM has no active employees. right now if GM discovers huge oil deposits under all its property and decides to go out of the car business and sell its property to exxon--it is still obligated to these past retirees from their lucky real estate wealth .
however, the big 3 retirees had their health care benefits cut somewhat in 2006 when the uaw re-opened the contracts and negotiated some relief.
to make sure they had the authority to do so, the UAW filed a class action lawsuit in federal court--the retirees then obtained legal representation separate from the union and after court hearing the cutbacks were approved.
in 2007 contract negotiations, the UAW agreed to set up independent trusts called VEBAS to provide for health care for past retirees. the big three would provide funding thru a combination of stock and money equal to about 50 cents on the dollar. once again this was approved by the federal court in detroit after notice to the retirees. recently the uaw agreed to change the mix on the funding and accept more stock and less cash. the vebas will take these legacy costs off the books of the big 3 in 2010 and put the risk on the uaw and independent trustees.
I read your words about comparative health care between the usa and canada. it is standard dittohead nonsense. opps I am not supposed to do name calling so let me just say you speak with forked tongue. Give me the name and phone number of any of these alleged canadian who want to go backwards to our system. I know a few more canadians than you do-eh!. heck most of them live south of me!
they laugh about comments like this as they watch the bus loads of american seniors crossing over to buy the same prescription drugs sold profitably in canada for less than 50% of our costs.
find me one, just one, national politician or a political party in canada advocating a return to the employer-fiat health model we have.
yes canadians wait for elective surgery--but everyone has coverage and the overall quality of care--in terms of life expectancy, favorable medical outcomes, etc exceeds the usa by a wide margin.
we are the only industrialized country without national health care. we have 46 million americans without health care, are ranked 17th in the world in terms of favorable health care outcomes, have costs going up somewhere between 14% to 20% a year and you say you are pleased with the status quo.
fortunately you are in a very declining minority.americans are not going to be scared with the socialist medicine tag this time. hell i don't care if my doctor, nurse or orderly is a socialist or a methodist. hell i don't even care if my doctor is a republican--he can't help it --he's making a bundle too.
canada spend 7 % of their gnp on a better health care system which provides universal coverage we spend 14-16% of our GNP on an inferior patchwork system with high copays and gaps with 46 million americans (mostly children) falling not between the cracks --but into the chasm
but let's put this into perspective for this debate: the same care made in canada by the same company costs $1800 less to build because they have national health care.
i win!
world heath organization ranks us health care system at 37th in the world . canada is 30th. almost of of socialist europe and even cuba ranks above usa.
canadian life expectancy is a remarkable 3 years ahead of ours.
in 2005 canada spent $3,128 per citizen or 9.8% of its GDP on health care. US spent most of anyone $6,401 or 15.3% of GDP.
don't forget we still don't have health care coverage for 46 million americans.
bring on that socialized medicine while i am still alive please!
I can vouch for this one - One of my friends had a Cadillac (bought new in late 80s), and he would have to put the car in Park, then slide over to pay express way / parking meter tolls
However, there was another - and in my mind, bigger - problem that the US companies did not address initially. This was the lack of a nationwide dealer / servicing network (a must, when competing with the domestics here) leading them to focus mostly on high end sales in big cities (where they ran up against the Germans). Compounded with the reliability issue at that time, it is easy to see why it did not work out. Nothing to do with the tariff barriers here (after the market was opened in the mid 80s).
At that time, the market was also opened for semiconductors and financial services. Intel, TI and the US investment banks went on to take large market shares, and one does not hear them complaining about the "protective barriers".
Not to say that Japan is as open as the US. There are tariff barriers on agricultural products, construction materials etc, but these are areas where Japan is not competitive internationally (hence the protection - though people like me would say it BECAUSE of it....).
Thank you for the explanation.
The United Auto Workers union launched a nationwide strike against General Motors on Monday as 73,000 UAW members walked off the job and hit the picket lines at the nation's largest automaker.
UAW President Ron Gettelfinger blasted GM management, saying that the company had not been willing to meet the union part way in negotiations.
"This is nothing we wanted," he said about the strike. "No one benefits in a strike. But there comes a point where someone can push you off a cliff. That's what happened here."
Company officials did not respond to Gettelfinger's comments, other than to say they were disappointed that the first national strike against the company in more than 37 years had been called, and that they hoped that an agreement to end the walkout could be reached soon.
Gettelfinger said at the midday press conference that the union is ready to discuss the company's key bargaining goal of shifting an estimated $51 billion in healthcare expenses for retirees and their family members to union-controlled trust funds. But he said that other issues had derailed hopes of an agreement.
The union president said he was looking for assurances from the company about the job security of UAW members. He said he wanted guarantees about how much GM would invest in U.S. plants and about how many new vehicles would be built in the United States.
The UAW has seen its membership at GM plummet by 70 percent since 1994, as the automaker dumped its parts unit and closed plants to try to align its production more in line with its shrinking U.S. market share.
Outcome of strike
A new labor contract was ratified by UAW members exactly one week after the tentative agreement was reached, passing by a majority 62% vote. In the contract are several product and employment guarantees stretching well into the next decade. One of GM's key future products, the Chevy Volt, was promised to the GM Poletown/Detroit-Hamtramck plant in 2010. Also included is a VEBA (Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association) which will transfer retiree health care obligations to the UAW by 2010. This eliminates more than 50 billion dollars from GM's healthcare tab. It will be funded by 30 billion in cash and 1.4 billion in GM stock paid to the UAW over the next 4 years of the contract. It also eliminates 70% of the labor cost gap with GM's Japanese rivals.
General Motors workers who build the Chevrolet Malibu, one of G.M.’s most popular and important new vehicles, went on strike Monday at a plant in Kansas after they were unable to reach an agreement with the company on local work rules.
Union members walked a picket line outside the General Motors Fairfax Assembly plant in Fairfax, Kan., on Monday. The plant is one of two that make the redesigned Chevrolet Malibu.
It is the second strike by a United Automobile Workers local against G.M. this spring after a decade without any single-plant work stoppages. Workers at a plant that builds crossover vehicles, which are big sellers for G.M., near Lansing, Mich., have been on strike for nearly three weeks. Together, the plants employ about 4,500 people.
The two walkouts are in addition to a long strike at one of G.M.’s parts suppliers, American Axle and Manufacturing, which forced G.M. to close many of its truck and sport utility vehicle factories in March and April.
Though U.A.W. officials deny it, some labor experts say that the union is singling out critical G.M. plants for strikes in hopes that G.M. will prod American Axle to reach a deal with its workers.
“It’s very rare that you get strikes on issues like this,” Professor Chaison said. “They’re trying all ways possible to put pressure on American Axle, having found themselves at a disadvantageous position in that strike. They’re still showing that they’re a party that must be reckoned with, that they still have some influence and leverage in negotiations.”