Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

United Automobile Workers of America (UAW)

1395396398400401405

Comments

  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,432
    edited March 2015
    Oh I think a complete failure of the auto industry would have been an utter catastrophe.

    There was NEVER a chance of a complete failure of the auto industry. Ford, Toyota, Nissan, Honda were doing fine. The suppliers for GM and C were also supplying the rest. And as the AA article mentions, chapter 11 bankruptcy is a common way to shed unwanted costs. AHA, there is the Real issue. The UAW was a burden to GM & C along with Ford. In a real legal bankruptcy they would see some give and take like the rest. In the Obamanation bankruptcy, everyone took a cleaning except the UAW. It could have been done legally without any catastrophic consequences. The result will be reluctance to invest in American companies. And we are seeing that play out with more and more companies investing over seas.

    Indiana's State Police Fund and Major Moves Construction Fund, which finances roads and bridges, together lost more than $1 million. And the Teacher's Retirement Fund "suffered, at a minimum, a loss of $4.6 million due to the action of the Federal government," reports Mr. Mourdock.

    Far from being speculators, these funds represent retired public employees, including cops and teachers. The funds paid a premium to buy "secured" status, only to discover that they were politically outranked by the United Auto Workers in the White House hierarchy.

    "In the past, to be 'secured' meant an investor was 'first in line' in the event of a bankruptcy and 'non-secured' creditors would receive value after secured-creditors were paid," Mr. Mourdock says. "In the Chrysler bankruptcy, however, secured creditors received $.29 on the dollar even as non-secured creditors received higher values and ended up with a 55% ownership of the new company, which is fundamentally wrong and a dangerous precedent to the capital markets."


    http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124286497706641485
  • steverstever Posts: 52,462
    If it's "fundamentally wrong" the offended parties could object and appeal. They probably did. Maybe still could, going by the efforts to make "new" GM responsible for the ignition switch mess by "old" GM. Last I heard a judge was telling those injured parties to prove that GM committed fraud; otherwise the bankruptcy wouldn't be reopened and the "new" GM would be protected from damages.

    (Don't forget that Ford went to DC to garner support for GM and Chrysler too. If Ford was doing "fine" we wouldn't have been able to pick up some of their stock for $5 a share).
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,432
    (Don't forget that Ford went to DC to garner support for GM and Chrysler too. If Ford was doing "fine" we wouldn't have been able to pick up some of their stock for $5 a share).

    Everyone was hurting, I got my "F" at $1.76 per share. The issue was the 5th amendment protected bonds. Most of the bond holders were the big Banksters. They got bailed out with TARP and did not scream at the injustice. As usual in our system of justice the little guys got the shaft. The small investors that got hurt bad with their supposed safe investment. Similar to what 3rd World countries do. Like when Mexico went to the New Peso and reduced 1000 pesos to one Nuevo Peso. Which at the time matched the US dollar. Now what are they about 13 Nuevo Pesos to the US dollar. The whole bankruptcy was Political. If you were part of the UAW IN CROWD you came out doing well. If you worked for one of the OTHER Companies like Delphi, you got the royal shafting. Ironic part the UAW has already dumped their share of Chrysler and will likely lose jobs if they get stupid and strike for a bigger share.
  • tlongtlong CaliforniaPosts: 5,192
    I don't buy the "it would have been a catastrophe" if GM and C failed. The best parts would have been bought up, it would have been more painful in some ways than it was -- but what would have emerged would have been a leaner, tougher, more competitive US auto industry - better than it is today. And maybe the dealers in brain-dead states wouldn't be trying to get Tesla (a US company) prevented from selling their cars.
  • berriberri Posts: 10,166
    But I think you may be looking at this from a zero sum perspective, that it was only about the auto industry and it's companies. Personally, I don't think anyone really knows for sure what would have happened - let alone the all too often unintended consequences that are unfortunately all too common in life and its decisions. But its probably really just water over the dam at this point in time.
  • marsha7marsha7 Posts: 3,703
    I am of the belief that letting them go bankrupt would have caused major change, but they would have come out leaner and better...break UAW contracts, break the pension plan, and let the chips fall where they may...Corvette would have been made by either a leaner GM or someone else who bought GM's assets, but there is nothing sacred about the logo of GM, just like there was nothing sacred about Pan Am or Eastern Air Lines...

    I think Joseph Schumpeter (sp?) called it "creative destruction"...just like Henry Ford did to the makers of buggy whips and horse draw carriages, just like Android and Apple did to Blackberry...there is nothing sacred about autoworkers, and they would have found jobs with other automakers, although they may have to move to get them...all those transplant factories, plus whoever bought out GM's assets...all Obama did was protect his Democrat union buddies and violate US bankruptcy law...he should be impeached, but that is something for another topic...:):):)
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    I dont' think so. I think the infrastructure would have been cannibalized, broken up, destroyed, and the foreign companies would have moved right in to pick the skeleton, and slide right into the pickup and Jeep markets. Ford was extremely shaky to say the least. Just look at the record of their corporate maneuvers. Besides all that, it would have led to a complete loss of confidence of the American consumer. Who wants to buy a Ford when they might collapse just as suddenly? then there are all the supplier networks which would have collapsed without contracts.

    Sure, Ford might have recovered to be a small player. The auto industry is BOOMING right now--how could it be any better?

    Yes, yes, the bankruptcy was messy but when the house is burning down, you don't politely ask where the door is.
  • tlongtlong CaliforniaPosts: 5,192
    "Sure, Ford might have recovered to be a small player. The auto industry is BOOMING right now--how could it be any better?"

    Well we don't really know, do we?

    The problem with these sorts of things is that unlike say a clinical trial study on a drug, you can't run the experiment both ways. You take a guess and run it one way, and then there is endless speculation about what would have happened - but we can never know.

    On the one hand the auto industry is doing great - sure, the economy is pretty good right now (not to mention the pent up demand). But the other way - could have been a total collapse, or could have been better than now.

    We might not have legacy dealership organizations trying to stifle sales of the most advanced electric car in the world - designed and made in USA - if they had been disbanded. We might not have the drag of union pensions on the price of new US car stickers - lowering the price and improving competitiveness of US makes. We might have had other companies step into the business - with new ideas and innovations. We will never know.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,432
    edited March 2015
    I would really question if the auto industry is doing great. It is in a bubble much like the housing bubble. Sub Prime auto loans. Crazy lease deals to move iron. People are working for less and more people are NOT working than anytime in the last 37 years. I don't think the auto bubble will make the mess we are still in from the housing bubble. The UAW may not be so lucky next time GM goes belly up. To show just how little the auto industry really is. Apple has enough Cash to buy every share of Ford and GM stock and have over $50 billion left in the bank. Automobiles are small potatoes compared to consumer electronics. Samsung had way over twice the revenue of General Motors last year.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    Basically what happened is that the government nationalized GM and C. On an $80 billion dollar investment, the government, after all the shake-out, and after making a profit on GMAC, charged the taxpayer with about a 2.9 billion dollar loss, total. That's probably less than a week of the Iraq war, or about 14 F-22 raptor jets, just to put things in perspective. Seems more than worth it, in retrospect.

    Ford was actually in favor of the bailout and as you may recall, went to Congress right along with GM and C to support a bailout. Ford knew quite well that Romney's suggestion of letting the two companies fall into a "structured bankruptcy" and become smaller and more efficient companies in time wouldn't work because both companies would have needed considerable cash to operate while restructering. So a restructure with big loan money was impossible, and total collapse was the only alternative to a bailout.

    Said Mulally: "This could be upwards of 13% of the U.S. GDP if they (GM and Chrysler) were to go into freefall," Mulally said. "We believed [seeking the bailout] was the right thing for the industry, the right thing for the United States of America.... I'd do the same thing today."

    The only difference with Ford is that they borrowed their money privately.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,432
    Basically what happened is that the government nationalized GM and C. On an $80 billion dollar investment, the government, after all the shake-out, and after making a profit on GMAC, charged the taxpayer with about a 2.9 billion dollar loss, total.

    If you believe that bit of creative spin. I have read figures up to $15 billion loss on GM. Plus the Billions dumped into their R&D on the Volt and other projects. The biggest loss to the tax payers was the $27-$29 Billion handed to the UAW Pension plan in both cash and stock. With $800 Billion in TARP being handed out willy nilly and anotehr $800 Billion in Stimulus, how would anyone ever find the truth? We know a lot of people got rich, from those two government giveaways. Not me and probably not you. :)
  • fintailfintail Posts: 48,268
    edited March 2015
    15BN, the cost of a few years worth of aid to one single petulant ungrateful piece of land, not to mention the cost of defending tax havens and those who now compete with domestic industry. I'd rather bail out domestic workers, even if it is those who don't support a Georgia style socio-economic spectrum :)
  • berriberri Posts: 10,166
    I think this bailout stuff is frankly, speculation and kind of moot today. Also, like usual in these kind of things, many people seem to have different numbers :)
  • tlongtlong CaliforniaPosts: 5,192
    fintail said:

    15BN, the cost of a few years worth of aid to one single petulant ungrateful piece of land, not to mention the cost of defending tax havens and those who now compete with domestic industry. I'd rather bail out domestic workers, even if it is those who don't support a Georgia style socio-economic spectrum :)

    I'd rather not bail out anybody. :o

  • tlongtlong CaliforniaPosts: 5,192
    berri said:

    I think this bailout stuff is frankly, speculation and kind of moot today. Also, like usual in these kind of things, many people seem to have different numbers :)

    I guess we are learning how to be accountants and financial sharks!

    "What would you LIKE that number to be?..."

  • berriberri Posts: 10,166
    So true. It's good to get different opinions and takes on things, even if arithmetic is sometimes lacking. But I think 10 years or so down the line, despite all of the confrontation and special influence peddlers in today's political spectrum, the whole bailout thing will just be a blip in history. If you look at the numbers in perspective, while large - they are just a small fraction of GDP, S&P 500 value, or government budgets. I think that if you look at it like return on investment, the government basically leveraged the situation with an overall proportionately small amount into a stronger industry today. The bad part to me is that they employed equity rather than debt (loans) so they didn't get any offsetting direct return to the taxpayer, although there was some indirect return through increased business volume impact on taxes and employment I suppose.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    Well that's capitalism isn't it---privatize the profits and socialize the losses? :)

  • berriberri Posts: 10,166
    Funny, but unfortunately very true sometimes!
  • fintailfintail Posts: 48,268
    Me too, but it comes with government, always has, always will. Every war, every dopey tax policy, every dumb trade agreement with unfair players, all subsidies (pre-emptive bailouts) for someone.

    Shifty, that's definitely what the system has become. And those receiving privatized profits will cry about socialism.
    tlong said:


    I'd rather not bail out anybody. :o

  • tlongtlong CaliforniaPosts: 5,192
    So is it safe to say that the UAW is declining? I know 5-10 years ago it was a big topic. Nowadays it seems as if electronics have overtaken cars as a hobby/focus area for many people. And although the UAW got a bail out in the BKs, there's a two-tier system now and the UAW is having trouble unionizing anybody else. Do we expect them to slowly decline as F and GM get more efficient? - or is there a contract coming up where we expect that they can hold some sway over their semi-golden geese as business stays good and the threat of shutdown during a strike starts the same old story happening again?
  • steverstever Posts: 52,462
    Right to Work may be the coffin nail.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,432
    edited March 2015
    I don't think RTW will kill the UAW. The UAW will kill the UAW. They have grown in Indiana since RTW was passed. They have two tier with some innovation. The pay is based on the location. This is the latest contracts signed last year. Will we ever see UAW workers getting Pensions or $30 per hour again? I don't think so.

    But later on Monday, Automotive News reported that a Lear senior vice-president of human resources, Tom DiDonato, said that in order to eliminate the two-tier system for about 450 workers, the UAW agreed to accept a new job title for 310 positions—sub-assembly workers—with even lower wages. At the end of the contract, starting pay for subassembly workers would be $12 an hour (compared to $16.50 for assembly workers) and the maximum would be $15.25 (below the top pay of $16 an hour in the previous contract for assembly workers).

    Luna continued to insist that two-tier wages had been eliminated, Automotive News reported. He said that workers’ support for the contract was “overwhelming” but refused to give the precise vote count.


    http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/17196/did_indiana_autoworkers_strike_a_blow_against_two_tier_contracts
  • steverstever Posts: 52,462
    edited March 2015
    Oh, you mean they are working in Indiana to show that you get some value by joining the organization?

    What a concept. B)

    Let's see, thanks to RTW, the unions are forced once again to justify their existence since they are no longer "guaranteed" a membership, so they get back to work and earn their keep. They'll fight tooth and nail for better wages and working conditions and businesses will wind up paying more and the Dems get more phone bank workers. Talk about unintended consequences.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,432
    stever said:

    Oh, you mean they are working in Indiana to show that you get some value by joining the organization?

    What a concept. B)

    Let's see, thanks to RTW, the unions are forced once again to justify their existence since they are no longer "guaranteed" a membership, so they get back to work and earn their keep. They'll fight tooth and nail for better wages and working conditions and businesses will wind up paying more and the Dems get more phone bank workers. Talk about unintended consequences.

    I think Michigan UAW leaders have to be even more worried. I hear a lot of unrest over the two tier on FB. I joined the CWA voluntarily in 1962. All Federal Employees have been under the Taft Hartley "RTW" laws since the 1940s. Our friend that works for SS has never been a member of the Union that represents her. She does not know anyone that is a member after working there 30 years.

    Bottom line, the states with RTW laws are getting the new factories. In CA it would not make any difference. The Trade Unions are about all history. Immigrant contractors don't need no stinking Unions.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 48,268
    Not just declining, but irrelevant to most workers today. I don't know anyone who is an industrial union - closest thing is a public sector professional friend who I don't think is in a formal union, just receives old union style perks (tenure, pension fund, etc) - but I guess that's a discussion for another time. I'm still waiting to see the police union juggernaut to be addressed by anyone, but I am not going to hold my breath.

    Some of not needing unions is a willingness to race to the bottom - take a look at the employees of some of those contractors, not to mention legal debates. The pendulum will probably swing back at some time, as we enter a new belle epoque.
    tlong said:

    So is it safe to say that the UAW is declining? I know 5-10 years ago it was a big topic. Nowadays it seems as if electronics have overtaken cars as a hobby/focus area for many people. And although the UAW got a bail out in the BKs, there's a two-tier system now and the UAW is having trouble unionizing anybody else. Do we expect them to slowly decline as F and GM get more efficient? - or is there a contract coming up where we expect that they can hold some sway over their semi-golden geese as business stays good and the threat of shutdown during a strike starts the same old story happening again?

  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,432
    I'm still waiting to see the police union juggernaut to be addressed by anyone, but I am not going to hold my breath.

    Public employee Unions of EVERY kind give all unions a bad name. Most people would not know the difference between public and private union. All they see are cops, firemen and teachers knocking down packages that are over $100k per year, while they are struggling to keep up with their bills. It is especially bad in CA where we pay professors $243k per year to teach one stinking class a week. And have close to 20,000 retired public servants knocking down over $100k per year. Public servants and their corrupt unions are bankrupting our cities and states. Protecting incompetent cops is a small part of the problem.
  • tlongtlong CaliforniaPosts: 5,192
    gagrice said:

    I'm still waiting to see the police union juggernaut to be addressed by anyone, but I am not going to hold my breath.

    Public employee Unions of EVERY kind give all unions a bad name. Most people would not know the difference between public and private union. All they see are cops, firemen and teachers knocking down packages that are over $100k per year, while they are struggling to keep up with their bills. It is especially bad in CA where we pay professors $243k per year to teach one stinking class a week. And have close to 20,000 retired public servants knocking down over $100k per year. Public servants and their corrupt unions are bankrupting our cities and states. Protecting incompetent cops is a small part of the problem.

    Government is definitely not providing us a good value for the dollar. Too bad we can't get some good old competition going for these services. Competition has even made the UAW more honest.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,462
    Belle Époque - nice turn of phase that's new to me. My non-union teachers back in Mississippi never mentioned that before. B)
  • andres3andres3 Southern CAPosts: 11,030
    Regarding "how could the auto industry be doing any better than they are today?" I'd say they could have been doing this good MUCH sooner had we gone without the bailouts.

    But as others have said, we'll never really know, though most sources point to a 15-20 billion dollar loss on the experiment, not 2 billion.
    '16 Audi TTS quattro 2.0T, '15 Audi A4 quattro 2.0T, '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion AWD
  • tlongtlong CaliforniaPosts: 5,192
    andres3 said:

    Regarding "how could the auto industry be doing any better than they are today?" I'd say they could have been doing this good MUCH sooner had we gone without the bailouts.

    But as others have said, we'll never really know, though most sources point to a 15-20 billion dollar loss on the experiment, not 2 billion.

    The cows will come home during the next recession, or the next energy crisis. Let's see how well the bailees have fixed up their finances when that happens. We bailed out Chrysler and now it is a foreign automaker.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,462
    > now it is a foreign automaker

    Kind of like Toyota and Honda, both of whom employee lots of US workers. As do GM and Ford in other countries.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,432
    Except Chrysler was a gift to Italy from the tax payers of the USA. And as soon as the UAW pulls their usual BS, those jobs will go elsewhere. Think Chinese built Jeeps.
  • andres3andres3 Southern CAPosts: 11,030
    stever said:

    > now it is a foreign automaker

    Kind of like Toyota and Honda, both of whom employee lots of US workers. As do GM and Ford in other countries.

    And Toyota and Honda don't have the history of being previously bailed out by American Tax Payers like Chrysler does.

    Toyota and Honda also never sold Neons :(
    '16 Audi TTS quattro 2.0T, '15 Audi A4 quattro 2.0T, '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion AWD
  • steverstever Posts: 52,462
    Yep, those ferrinors don't qet squat from the taxpayers in M'sippi or 'Bama. (toyotainmississippi.com)
  • marsha7marsha7 Posts: 3,703
    andres3 said:

    Regarding "how could the auto industry be doing any better than they are today?" I'd say they could have been doing this good MUCH sooner had we gone without the bailouts.

    But as others have said, we'll never really know, though most sources point to a 15-20 billion dollar loss on the experiment, not 2 billion.

    I was under the impression (and I may be quite wrong on this) that taxpayers gave GM around $50 billion, of which $40 billion was a gift and $10 billion was a "loan"...so, when GM said they paid back their "loan" in full, they were using the words literally...most folks thought that meant they paid back $50 billion, but they only paid the $10 billion, since the rest was a gift (bribe) to the UAW...

    It would be nice if I only had to pay back 20% of my mortgage, and then say I paid it all back...
  • steverstever Posts: 52,462
    edited March 2015
    Georgia - seems like they "gave" Kia a bit of incentive money too, eh? ;) (english.chosun.com)

    Sure is nice to live in a progressive Western state where we only give incentives to spaceports.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,432
    I have seen so many sets of conflicting numbers. I doubt I would put much credibility into Center for Automotive Research. They are a non profit started by University of Michigan. A source with a lot of skin in the automobile industry. I think the $10 billion lost when they sold their GM stock is correct. The $29 billion given to the GM/UAW Pension Trust was a gift from all I can find. Most of the non union workers got the shaft. Delphi retirees got caught in the middle.

    The retirees contend that the Obama administration “picked winners and losers” as it helped guide GM through its own 2009 stint in bankruptcy protection. They charge that the administration helped ensure that union pensions were bolstered or “topped off,” while salaried pensions were ignored. Topping off hourly pensions was never a legal obligation for GM while it was going through bankruptcy, they argue.

    “The truth is beginning to emerge,” said Tom Rose, a Washington Twp. resident who worked for GM and Delphi for 39 years.


    http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/business/delphi-retirees-cheer-federal-ruling/ngkgT/
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,432
    According to the Center for Automotive Research, the bailout saved 1.2 million jobs and $34.9 billion in tax revenue.

    I would love to see which companies have paid anywhere near that amount. I don't think GM has paid a penny so far. The GM bailout just keeps giving to them for years to come.

    DETROIT, May 4 (UPI) -- A spokesman for U.S. automaker General Motors said the company paid no federal income tax for 2011 despite earnings of $13 billion since 2009.

    The Detroit News reported Friday GM earned profits of $1 billion in January through March but may not have a federal tax bill to pay "for many more years."

    The tax-free years are the result of GM's stint in bankruptcy in 2009.

    The newspaper reported the Treasury Department gave GM permission to use the $18 billion in losses from the pre-bankruptcy company, the so-called old GM, to cancel out any profits it has made since it emerged from bankruptcy.


    http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2012/05/04/GMs-federal-income-tax-bill-Zilch/97811336160538/

    General Motors Co. will drive away from its U.S.-government-financed restructuring with a final gift in its trunk: a tax break that could be worth as much as $45 billion.

    Now it turns out, according to documents filed with federal regulators, the revamping left the car maker with another boost as it prepares to return to the stock market. It won't have to pay $45.4 billion in taxes on future profits.


    http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704462704575590642149103202
  • tlongtlong CaliforniaPosts: 5,192
    stever said:

    Georgia - seems like they "gave" Kia a bit of incentive money too, eh? ;) (english.chosun.com)

    Sure is nice to live in a progressive Western state where we only give incentives to spaceports.

    I think the difference is that companies are routinely given tax breaks to site in their localities. This has the effect of raising the tax base, stimulating the local economy, and ending up putting more money in the local coffers in exchange for the early tax "discount". It's also not done for companies that are typically on the verge of failure.

    For the full bailout, it was from the feds, not for local economic stimulation, and the business models of these companies had failed. That's a big difference if you believe in survival of the fittest.

  • steverstever Posts: 52,462
    edited March 2015
    Different pots of "our" money, but it's hard to ask what's not local about Toledo or Dearborn (or Chattanooga, where one of my nephews makes interior car bits, and not just for VW?).

    And the failure part - GM and Chrysler had the real estate, the tooling, the dealer network and the trained employees. They could hit the ground running. Much of the economic development tax breaks are for existing companies to expand (through additional infracstructure or "free" commnunity college classes), but many others are risky endeavours that don't fly. Even in those sucessful cases, you are often talking years to see any results.
  • robr2robr2 BostonPosts: 8,863
    gagrice said:

    I would love to see which companies have paid anywhere near that amount. I don't think GM has paid a penny so far. The GM bailout just keeps giving to them for years to come.

    That's not the amount paid by one company. It's taxes that have been paid by other companies related to the automotive industry including tier 1 suppliers such as:

    Goodyear
    TRV
    Lear
    Johnson Controls
    Dana
    Cummings
    DuPont

    and thousands of tier 2 suppliers that make things like clamps, hoses, misc plastic parts as well tens of thousands of support companies such as MSFT, local IT companies, the office supply company, the coffee service, et al.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,432
    That's not the amount paid by one company. It's taxes that have been paid by other companies related to the automotive industry including tier 1 suppliers such as:


    I understood that, just don't believe it. Of course if they are saying over a ten year period it may be so. When a number like $34.9 billion is tossed out without a time frame, I expect it is for one year. We will never know if it was good for the auto industry and the USA. By some standards the US is doing great. Just not if you are in the bottom half of society. Or in a part of the country the largesse was not aimed at. Those 4500 UAW folks in CA at the GM/Toyota factory, are likely homeless by now. To me all TARP and the Stimulus did is make the banksters on wallstreet very rich and the dollars in my pocket worth less. Then I am in the 100 million plus on a fixed income with no COL. Anyone that believes the bailout was anything but a UAW payback for support of the Democrats, is not paying attention.
  • robr2robr2 BostonPosts: 8,863
    gagrice said:

    That's not the amount paid by one company. It's taxes that have been paid by other companies related to the automotive industry including tier 1 suppliers such as:


    I understood that, just don't believe it. Of course if they are saying over a ten year period it may be so. When a number like $34.9 billion is tossed out without a time frame, I expect it is for one year. We will never know if it was good for the auto industry and the USA. By some standards the US is doing great. Just not if you are in the bottom half of society. Or in a part of the country the largesse was not aimed at. Those 4500 UAW folks in CA at the GM/Toyota factory, are likely homeless by now. To me all TARP and the Stimulus did is make the banksters on wallstreet very rich and the dollars in my pocket worth less. Then I am in the 100 million plus on a fixed income with no COL. Anyone that believes the bailout was anything but a UAW payback for support of the Democrats, is not paying attention.

    I guess we'll just have to disagree. We aren't going to change our minds.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,462
    edited March 2015
    Y'all are both now qualified to run for Congress. :D

    Tension in Tennessee:

    "Top Volkswagen officials came under harsh questioning Tuesday from a Chattanooga Republican lawmaker who charged that the German auto manufacturer is a "magnet for organized labor, intentionally."

    Sen. Bo Watson slams VW over labor policies, UAW recognition (timesfreepress.com)

    Some of the rancor likely relates to this story from last month:

    Anti-UAW Volkswagen employee suspended (nooga.com)
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,432
    I think there is more going on than we are seeing with VW. There is a big worker's push against the companies in Germany over Obama's TPP. The Worker's in Germany have had tariff protection for a very long time. Now with TPP looking to do away with all trade barriers, the competition from all over will put pressure on the German workers. What the German Unions want to see in the USA is illegal.

    German workers have also demanded that U.S. autoworkers be given co-management benefits that they enjoy.
    The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) would eliminate all tariffs between the United States and European Union. Germany’s labor unions have criticized the deal, while auto industry bosses have endorsed the agreement. "We will not accept a softening of standards for environmental and consumer protection or a hollowing out of worker rights and the right to co-determination," the trade union IG Metall said in a joint press release with union representatives of Daimler, BMW, Ford, Opel as well Volkswagen's divisions VW and Porsche. Workers´groups insisted that while fewer tariffs and the creation of common technical standards may be beneficial for German industry, the trade deal must ensure labor rights including union representatives the right to vote on significant strategy goals such as shutting down a factory. This should also be guaranteed in the United States, the statement highlighted. In Germany, the law guarantees that labor representatives at large corporations have half the board of directors’ seats allowing, workers to voice their opinions and proposals in the company’s strategies.


    http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/German-Auto-Workers-Fight-for-Rights-as-US-Trade-Deal-Looms-20150127-0043.html
  • steverstever Posts: 52,462
    "U.S. auto production is nearing all-time highs on the back of strong domestic demand and steady export increases. But American-made cars and trucks are increasingly loaded with parts imported from Mexico, China and other nations.

    Wages are much lower for American workers at parts companies than at car manufacturers, though both have trended down. In 2014, the average hourly wage for production and other nonsupervisory workers at car-parts makers was $19.91, down 23% from a decade earlier in inflation-adjusted terms. That compares with a 22% decline to $27.83 at makers of motor vehicles, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

    Kevin Hobbs, president of the United Auto Workers local that represents workers at the American Axle plant where pay starts at $10 an hour, said members struggle to meet basic living expenses. One major consolation is that health-care benefits are excellent."

    U.S. Car-Making Boom? Not for Auto-Industry Workers (sorry, registration WSJ link, unless you can find it on Google)
  • marsha7marsha7 Posts: 3,703
    When Georgia gave incentives to Kia, keep in mind that one of the main incentives is almost always a break on property taxes for 10 years...considering that the property in question is usually rural farmland bring in almost zero tax dollars anyway, the state/county almost has nothing to lose by offering a tax abatement for 10 years, while reaping the benefits of the new auto plant, higher wages, all those ancillary businesses that grow up to serve the plant (which pay sales tax if they are retail like restaurants, etc., sales tax to the state and county that they would never see other wise), plus the new homes that get built that raise the tax base more than farmland...I think it is a win-win for GA, what is the downside?
  • steverstever Posts: 52,462
    You mean farmers get a tax break on their land? I'm shocked and amazed. :D
  • robr2robr2 BostonPosts: 8,863
    marsha7 said:

    When Georgia gave incentives to Kia, keep in mind that one of the main incentives is almost always a break on property taxes for 10 years...considering that the property in question is usually rural farmland bring in almost zero tax dollars anyway, the state/county almost has nothing to lose by offering a tax abatement for 10 years, while reaping the benefits of the new auto plant, higher wages, all those ancillary businesses that grow up to serve the plant (which pay sales tax if they are retail like restaurants, etc., sales tax to the state and county that they would never see other wise), plus the new homes that get built that raise the tax base more than farmland...I think it is a win-win for GA, what is the downside?

    Kia picked the site in West Point, GA. Byung Mo Ahn was driving on I85 from Atlanta to Hyundai's plant in Montgomery, AL and likes the picturesque looks of the location. Many alternate brownfield sites were offered but Ahn would only accept that location. There were 30 families living on the land that Kia wanted. It was up to Georgia to buy all that land from those families in order to give it - not sell it - to Kia. There were many alternates to the privately.

    What Kia got was $76 million in job tax credits over five years, $61 million to buy and prepare the project site, a $20 million for a job training center at the plant. and $130 million in property tax abatements for a period of 15 years. That's about $410 million dollars. They also got a CSX rail spur brought in.

    The only downside that I see with allowing Kia to locate in this site was that there were other areas already prepared to host a plant that size. There was an industrial area that had the infrastructure in place only 20 minutes away. But most of these companies looking for handouts typically want a greenfield area where they have more control.
Sign In or Register to comment.