UAW offers concessions to help bailout bid
posted at 11:47 am on December 4, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
Maybe if the UAW had acted before this, we wouldn’t have the Big Three automakers panhandling on Capitol Hill. Of course, if the executives had curtailed their bonuses, sold off their private jets, and streamlined their production, that could have done it as well. At least it looks like the people at risk have finally begun to act like they give a damn about it:
The United Automobile Workers union said Wednesday that it would make major concessions in its contracts with the three Detroit auto companies to help them lobby Congress for $34 billion in federal aid.
The surprising move by the U.A.W. could be a critical factor in the automakers’ bid not only to get government assistance, but also to become competitive with the cost structure of nonunion plants operated by foreign automakers in the United States.
At a news conference in Detroit, the U.A.W.’s president, Ron Gettelfinger, said that his members were willing to sacrifice job security provisions and financing for retiree health care to keep the two most troubled car companies of the Big Three, General Motors and Chrysler, out of bankruptcy.
“Concessions, I used to cringe at that word,” Mr. Gettelfinger said. “But now, why hide it? That’s what we did.”
When analyses showed that compensation at the Big Three for non-management personnel amounted to 50% over that of other automakers in the US, many wondered when the UAW would take action to help the companies to become more competitive. Auto workers complained that the analyses were inaccurate and reflected pension benefits, which amounted to a non-sequitur, since pension benefits are part of compensation. Apparently, the UAW realized that taxpayers bought that rationalization as much as they buy American-made cars these days, and changed its stance.
Since management seems willing to pare down executive compensation and labor appears ready to make significant wage concessions, why not just let them work this out together? Taxpayers don’t need to subsidize dysfunctional private corporations. They can either work together to eliminate the dysfunction or fail. At least the two sides have started acting like they have something at stake in the outcome, which is the first step towards recovery.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Nice! Get more money to a some schmuck who is going to go to the Congressmen and ask for more money….BRILLIANT!
UAW is a freaking scam.
upinak on December 4, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Unless the UAW ceases its bloodsucking off of the US Auto industry, any bailout is a pointless waste of money.
Anything manufactured by union labor costs more than it should and is of inferior quality.
Anyone with any experience learned that a long time ago.
As long as Detroit has non-union competitors, the Big 3 will never be viable.
NoDonkey on December 4, 2008 at 11:51 AM
If the greedy thugs would have made some concessions over the past 3 decades they may not be in the position they now are.
rplat on December 4, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Too little, too late. Bankruptcy is the only option for saving the big three, in the long run.
edgehead on December 4, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Turn out the lights….the party is over……
grapeknutz on December 4, 2008 at 11:53 AM
How about an institutional, permanent ban on political donations? That’d have to be first before I’d even let the b*st*rds in the room.
cthulhu on December 4, 2008 at 11:53 AM
They lost me with the Job Bank scheme. I’m all for a guy making a decent buck but getting paid full wages for sitting at home doesn’t make good business sense.
FireBlogger on December 4, 2008 at 11:54 AM
Why would a conservative want to give their tax dollars to a union organization that will spend those tax dollars to support liberal/leftist candidates?
http://blog.aflcio.org/2008/06/10/uaw-backs-obama-for-president/
Screw them.
Star20 on December 4, 2008 at 11:56 AM
Still not enough. So they got rid of the jobs bank and some retiree benefits? They still have huge salaries, healthcare and pensions.
lodge on December 4, 2008 at 11:58 AM
Too little, too late.
ctmom on December 4, 2008 at 11:59 AM
The UAW destroyed the American auto industry, and hence helped destroy Detroit. Let the UAW rot. I would love to see them thrown out on their a$$es.
ramrocks on December 4, 2008 at 11:59 AM
Detroit can go pound sand.
GarandFan on December 4, 2008 at 12:01 PM
Does that sacrificing retireee health care financing include those already retired? If it does and those retirees are not yet eligible for Medicare, I think that’s a bummer. If it just includes future benefits for present employees, then it is a real concession on their part.
jeanie on December 4, 2008 at 12:01 PM
UAW workers will not lose a penny. They will go on the Federal Payroll. When the Auto Companies can no longer fund the union pension plans, Congress will pay off the union, through the pension plan.
No matter how you say it, no matter how you spin it, no matter how you paint the picture, no matter how the news is reported, the democrat party will take care of the UAW.
The only thing that keeps the democrats in power is their use of the federal payroll to buy votes.
Skandia Recluse on December 4, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Jeanie anyone who goes into a job that is Union is either 1. thinking they will be taken care of for life or 2. not smart enough to look at the long term aspect if something happens.
Unions are not full proof and the take more then they give back in most cases. And I think a few thousand workers are figuring this out.
upinak on December 4, 2008 at 12:03 PM
Mel Brooks Blazing Saddles
Amazing how that quote works for the UAW,the Automobile Executives, and the Democrats.
They have done this to themselves through shoddy business practices and union intervention.
kingsjester on December 4, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Star20 is right:
Those wimpy Republican lawmakers sitting on that Panel should be asking the UAW President how much his union spent on political donations -to either side- over the last (pick a number) 10 years. Or for ease, ask them just in the 2006 and 2008 election cycle. Then ask him why that money is in Politicians coffers and not the hands of the Union Members. Same goes for the Big Three, how much has been spent on lobbying?
If we give them anything, and I’m okay with giving them the already authorized $25B to re-tool their plants, with the above concessions – no political contributions to either Party or Pacs or lobbyists by the UAW or the Big Three for the next 20 years. Yes, 20.
mngirl on December 4, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Screw the UAW.
CP on December 4, 2008 at 12:08 PM
Exactly! Wouldn’t it be a shame if workers actually had to perform and show inititive to get pay increases?
Say what you want about executive salaries, but at least most have to actually have the skills and intelligence to earn what they make.
dinobalz on December 4, 2008 at 12:09 PM
NO MONEY NO MONEY NO MONEY
There’s PLENTY of savings in these contracts and they DO NOT need OUR MONEY!
originalpechanga on December 4, 2008 at 12:09 PM
THIS IS ALL B.S.
The Job Bank was already negotiated to be stopped anyway in last year’s contract. No concession!
The retiree Health care fund is going to have to be paid later so what sort of concession is that, it’s just a delay?
I learned that on Fox and Friends this morning. My life feels complete at this moment.
Fandango on December 4, 2008 at 12:09 PM
Ed, nice of you to be so trusting.
This is nothing but PR stunt from both Big Three bosses and union.
Not a penny to them.
Sir Napsalot on December 4, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Unions get legal protections to protect workers from exploitation. If everyone agrees the UAW workers are disgustingly overpaid, then why should they be getting any legal or financial benefits at all?
Let the big 3 suppliers switch over to providing parts to the non-UAW manufacturers.
pedestrian on December 4, 2008 at 12:11 PM
I told myself to be nice today but the UAW is really nothing more than a collection of parasites. What happens if they pare down their bargaining agreement and the Big Three actually makes a few bucks over the next couple of years? They will go back to threats and demands that will put the auto industry in the same boat it is in now.
grdred944 on December 4, 2008 at 12:12 PM
UAW Leader: “Bankruptcy and restructuring plan is not an acceptable plan at this time”—-”studies show that the customers will not buy cars from a company in bankruptcy”
What a load of crap!
Rovin on December 4, 2008 at 12:13 PM
There seems to be a huge misconception on the internetz that this auto failure was caused by SUV’s. Not true at all. The fact is hybrids are the least profitable cars that toyota makes. The source of the problem is bat shit insane labor costs which result from the UAW. Not just pay/hour but 30 years worth of pension and healthcare benefits that are in no way sustainable.
The UAW needs to learn there are consequences and money does not grow on trees.
hanzblinx on December 4, 2008 at 12:14 PM
This whole thing sounds like what happened to steel in the 1980s. Except for bailout mania, of course.
Management and labor should have acted like realistic grownups and hashed this out a long time ago. Probably too late now.
forest on December 4, 2008 at 12:16 PM
The only concession we should allow for the UAW is to disband.
ConservativeLawStudent on December 4, 2008 at 12:17 PM
So if the executives agree to sell their private jets, forego their bonuses, and streamline production, and the UAW makes major concessions on pensions and health-care benefits, let them get down to business of making cars at competitive prices and leave the taxpayers out of it!
Any bailout money should come with a stipulation that the UAW may no longer make political contributions. But good luck with that with a Democrat Congress…
Steve Z on December 4, 2008 at 12:19 PM
I am old enough to remember this!
grapeknutz on December 4, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Hey, hey, hey, hold on a minute. They DO NOT sit at home and get full wages. They have to go to a room and do crossword puzzles and play Nintendo DS all day. Poor things.
sheesh on December 4, 2008 at 12:22 PM
With check card, it won’t be long until everyone is forced to join a union.
MarkTheGreat on December 4, 2008 at 12:24 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IM39yIKoSo4
D2Boston on December 4, 2008 at 12:25 PM
Dissolve the UAW.
Repeal CAFE standards and anything else that strangles competitiveness.
Fire all boards of directors with zero compensation
J.J. Sefton on December 4, 2008 at 12:25 PM
Next Consession asked from Management & UAW…Retirement/Pension Funds. Put them up as collateral on a Government LOAN, not Bail Out.
In essence, that is what they are asking from the rest of us.
PappaMac on December 4, 2008 at 12:27 PM
Come on, Ed. We’re talking hundreds of billions of losses between GM and Chrysler. I don’t support the private jets and the extravagant executive comp for the automakers any more than you do, but that’s not why the automakers failed. Fundamental bad business strategy and crippling union and legacy costs are what did them in.
As for the unions, my guess is that Obama and/or the Democratic congressional leadership told them that they would not bail out the Big Three without the concessions. The car unions have a very bad reputation; even here in Ohio, people I talk to characterize the union’s deals with the car manufacturers as being “beyond extravagant” and unjustified. If Obama did help to break the UAW, then my hat is off to him.
Outlander on December 4, 2008 at 12:29 PM
More union busting BS from the GOP shills, I see.
Grow Fins on December 4, 2008 at 12:30 PM
Studies show that the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware would bitch-slap the UAW and, therefore, it is our solemn duty as union goons to poison the water and make it politically unviable for the Big Three to go into Chapter 11.
Outlander on December 4, 2008 at 12:31 PM
I went through this s**t at a Lucent/AVAYA factory I worked at years ago when I was in a IBEW Union. I practically begged them to have us to pay more for our benefits to help with costs and such because I could see the writing on the wall. More and more production was going to Mexico, fewer and fewer orders were coming in. It was plain as day what was coming. We were paid great and had awesome benefits… too awesome as it turned out. We couldn’t compete. Sure enough the Union wouldn’t give up anything and I got laid off. Never had a job that paid as good since and that was back in the summer of 2001. When asked I tell people the best paying job I ever had was a Union job but that Union also cost me my job.
Yakko77 on December 4, 2008 at 12:31 PM
No, they did not get rid of the “jobs bank” – it’s a temporary suspension of the “jobs bank”, which I expect to resume when the taxpayer cash starts flowing in.
Also, they didn’t get rid of a single retiree benefit. Rather, there will be a delay in payments to a UAW-administered retiree health care fund meant to replace the companies-funded retiree health care system now in place. That means the old system will be in force until those payments are made, and thus is not a savings at all.
steveegg on December 4, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Brilliant thinking, nice shot!
mr.blacksheep on December 4, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Problem is not liquidity, but solvency.
Selling cars to people with credit ratings under 700 is not a good business plan.
Angry Dumbo on December 4, 2008 at 12:33 PM
The work rules are almost as bad as the high pay and extravagant benefits. I worked an industrial job under union work rules before, and it was just pathetic. We did maybe 4 hours of work in an 8 hour shift at most.
forest on December 4, 2008 at 12:34 PM
Speaking of lobbying dollars….shouldn’t any legislator that got any from the big 3 or the UAW, y’know, recuse themselves? Isn’t it otherwise a bit too obvious?
cthulhu on December 4, 2008 at 12:37 PM
I hate the UAW, and because of personal experience. The same day I was accepted into the UAW I was layed off because I was low seniority. I guess it did prompt me to go out and get a better (non-union) job.
loudmouth883 on December 4, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Chris Dodd came out in favor of the bailout (SHOCK). Let’s see how much ‘campaign money’ he got from the Big 3 and UAW. Will it rival Fannie & Freddie?
PappaMac on December 4, 2008 at 12:41 PM
Maybe the UAW realized that their days are numbered! It’s about time!
Pam on December 4, 2008 at 12:41 PM
Good luck with that.
What’s going on in the US auto industry should serve as a wake-up call for the utopian liberals/Leftists/Dems. No matter how much you tinker…no matter how much you lie and strong-arm…no matter how much you ignore reality…eventually, the economic fundementals of the market win.
Why are the Big 3 US automakers in such bad shape? Simple. The market isn’t bearing paying workers $40/hr to stand on an assembly line, bolting together inferior products. Especially when another company pays the same worker, doing the same job, $20/hr…and makes a superior product while doing it.
Simple. The end.
The gravy train is over. UAW members face what should be a simple choice: do I want a job that pays me $20/hr…or do I want to be unemployed making $0/hr?
It’s that or go the way of the American steel industry.
rvastar on December 4, 2008 at 12:43 PM
If the Big3 get the bailout money, I will never buy a Big3 product again. I refuse to support corporate and union welfare against my will and won’t do it if I have a choice.
I own 2 Ford vehicles now. An 05 and an 06. They will be my last. My daughter will be getting an SUV for her 16th BDay and i’ll be looking elsewhere. Probably a Honda Element or CRV.
roninacreage on December 4, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Gone will be the days of the honest auto worker… You know, the one who pulls down full pay and benefits for playing crossword puzzles.
Those scams have only robbed the union members of their dignity and self respect.
Honest days work for an honest days pay used to be the norm… hopefully we’ll get back to that standard.
gatorboy on December 4, 2008 at 12:46 PM
After working in a GM Plant for ten years and watching how the UAW operated…I wondered then how they could ever stay in business. They were getting 8 hours pay for 6 hours work, $20 an hour to empty trash and sweep floors. The UAW Rep’s were getting regular GM pay and another UAW salary on top that, I was told, almost doubled their income. And they didn’t have to do their normal work…just run around complaining about everything and writing grievances. This was over ten years ago. I’m amazed this hasn’t happened sooner.
KDANAZ on December 4, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Yes, I can see American consumers are now ready to give up on their efficient Japanese made vehicles and are about to storm the car yards for the shoddily made petrol guzzling rubbish Detroit pumps out. Bosses, unions, and workers… all fracking parasites.
FierceGuppy on December 4, 2008 at 12:48 PM
We have a winner. BUT.
I’m sure they’d rather be unemployed.
roninacreage on December 4, 2008 at 12:48 PM
Screw the UAW and the “Big 3″. Let them die swiftly yet painfully. This country needs to see the damage unions and impotent management can do.
guido911 on December 4, 2008 at 12:57 PM
I want to see that list of how many senators own stock in the Big 3.
Oh, and don’t buy American cars because you’re just keeping the UAW from going under.
moonsbreath on December 4, 2008 at 12:59 PM
It’s not all you did, either.
drjohn on December 4, 2008 at 1:03 PM
I went through similar BS at my Union job. I was actually told by many of my fellow workers that I needed to slow down as my high productivity would only raise the expected quota for everyone else. How sick is that? It was such easy work that I found it hard to believe I was being told this. My foreman to his credit told me to ignore them but when it came time for another round of layoffs, it wasn’t based on productivity, it was based on time of employment and I had only been with the company for 3 years so out the door I went. I was mad as hell of course but oddly enough I think my foreman was even more mad than I was. He was cussing up a storm when he saw me being walked out the door.
Yakko77 on December 4, 2008 at 1:03 PM
UAW Leader: “Bankruptcy and restructuring plan is not an acceptable plan at this time”—-”studies show that the customers will not buy cars from a company in bankruptcy”
What study? Please point us in right direction that will enlighten us after we read the “study”.
belad on December 4, 2008 at 1:04 PM
More union busting BS from the GOP shills, I see.
Grow Fins on December 4, 2008 at 12:30 PM
You bet your ass, dipstick. With their cash-strapped employers now begging us to bail them out because of their hideous uncompetitive labor contracts with the UAW, consider them busted.
TexasJew on December 4, 2008 at 1:06 PM
Selling cars to people with credit ratings under 700 is not a good business plan.
Angry Dumbo on December 4, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Actually, being forced to sell cars ONLY to people with a credit rating of over 700 is not a good business plan.
And that is why GMAC is down to less than 6% of the GM loans.
TexasJew on December 4, 2008 at 1:10 PM
The average American worker makes $52,748/year (wages & benefits). Imagine that is you. Now imagine your next door neighbor is a UAW member working at the local plant. Your neighbor is making $130,000/year (wages & benefits).
You probably have some health care in your average job, but it is a significant cost with relatively high deductibles. Your neighbor has a gold-plated health care plan, which costs $21 /month for the family. Oh, and your neighbor’s father worked at the auto plant, but he is now retired…..at age 51. He has a very nice pension on which to live, and he and his wife get that same gold-plated health care plan for $21/month.
You, with your average job trying to make ends meet, hear that the auto makers are near bankruptcy and are asking the taxpayers for a bailout. At the same time, the UAW is doing little to contribute to helping solve the problem. It finally dawns on you: you are being asked to help fund the bailout so that your neighbor and his family can continue to live their affluent lifestyle, while you strive to maintain. That is a source of significant anger that the UAW and politicians don’t seem to understand.
GM paid $4.6 billion in 2007 to cover health care benefits for workers and retirees. That is $1,200 for every car sold. Japanese auto makers, paying for standard health care benefits, add $215 per car (2006 numbers). So if you walk into a GM showroom, automatically you are paying $1000 more than at a Japanese auto dealer. And that $1000 is to be able to allow your neighbor to have to pay only $21/month for gold-plated health insurance.
The Big 3 and the UAW have to realize that their business model is flawed. It is not up to the taxpayers to bailout their affluence. They created the problem among themselves. They need to fix it or go under. We’ve all got our own problems. We don’t need to take on theirs as well.
Mallard T. Drake on December 4, 2008 at 1:11 PM
Fark them. They ruined the entire industry and deserve to die poor. Same for all other unions, especially those on the federal and local government doles.
Look around – policemen, firemen, in numerous cities retire early, early of ‘back pain’ or some other imaginary aches, for nearly 100% of base pay. Who wouldn’t want a job like that, along with HA’s leech, benny shaker?
Entelechy on December 4, 2008 at 1:18 PM
From a 1972 article.
Inflation has averaged 4.8% in the last 36 years since that article was written. That means that, adjusted for inflation, their present salary should be $23.11/hr today.
But they are getting much more than that. The latest figures are close to $29 per hour, not included benefits. so wages have increased more than inflation. That is fat.
At the same time, cars are much less affordable today than they were. For example, take a GM product like the Corvette. In 1972, a Corvette nicely loaded would sell for about $6500. Adjusted for inflation that is $33,375 today. But we know that today, a nicely loaded Corvette sells for about $70,000. So cars have increased in price double the rate of inflation which explains why young blue collar bad boys used to drive corvettes in 1972, but today it is over the hill white collar baby boomer executives.
So the market shrinks, while the labor costs increase. There is no way out of this.
keep the change on December 4, 2008 at 1:26 PM
It’s scary how ignorant some of you all are about several different aspects of this industry and how easily you throw around phrases like “screw the Big3″ and “let them die swiftly and painfully.” These are American workers you people are talking about–not parasites. The management at GM has been over a barrel for decades by both US Government policy and unions…the only two aspects of this discussion some of you seem to (kind-of) understand.
This person knows nothing:
The Unions need to go away yes, but the entire US auto industry? You better sit back and look at the big picture of what that would mean for our country. Right or wrong, if they do not get the money they need to stay in business right now, the results will be disastrous.
Youngs98 on December 4, 2008 at 1:27 PM
A nicely loaded Corvette Z06 goes for that much. You can buy a base model for about 39k which is “nicely loaded” by any measure. Why would you use a low production, top end Chevrolet Corvette for a price comparison?
Youngs98 on December 4, 2008 at 1:32 PM
My high school history teach had the same happen to him. He was passionate about history and went far above and beyond what most teachers were willing to do to help educate his students. The other teachers in his department and at the other HS in the city told him that it set unfair expectations for the rest of them, especially when his students started out performing theirs.
As for the promotions and firings being based on time spent with the company, that’s screwed over my brother in law at UPS. He’s one of those guys that always running and always putting 110% into everything he does. Quarter after quarter he receives recognition in his department as the top employee, however, when it’s time for promotions, he’s only eligible for whatever the next ‘Union determined step up” is set at. As a result, regardless of the amount of effort he puts into the job, it will be a minimum of 5 more years before he’s eligible for any of the higher paying jobs, regardless of the amount of time and effort he puts into things.
JadeNYU on December 4, 2008 at 1:32 PM
But Vito the union thug said, “If dere’s no bailout, den dere’s no concessions, hear? We sink togethah.”
jgapinoy on December 4, 2008 at 1:33 PM
Use any car you want. Inflation doesn’t care. I used a Corvette because it is one of only a few models that are still around from 1972 for a comparison
keep the change on December 4, 2008 at 1:35 PM
Some of us suspect that when the unions go away, the industry may be reborn. Under current circumstances, government loans/bailouts or not, they’re going to die anyway. The question is how much taxpayer money do we waste tying to avoid the inevitable for a few years.
DarkCurrent on December 4, 2008 at 1:36 PM
In defense of the business jet.
They do save executives a lot in travel time.
In addition to the time spent going through security and boarding the plane, there’s also the time spent waiting for your luggage on the other end. There’s also the time lost when you aren’t able to get a direct flight. Many smaller cities are almost impossible to get to on a direct flight. (I live in a smaller city. Believe me, I know about this problem.) When you are paying your CEO the equivalent of several hundred dollars an hour, you don’t want him lounging around in an airport.
There’s also the advantage of being able to travel when you want.
You can’t do that when flying commercial.
Finally, there is the ability to conduct business while in transit. It’s hard to conduct company confidential conversations, even in first class.
All those advantages multiply when you fly more than one executive at a time.
I have no idea what percentage of such travel is truely a business necesity, and what percentage is pure ego boost.
But private jets do serve a usefull business purpose.
MarkTheGreat on December 4, 2008 at 1:37 PM
No need to bust the unions. They did that to themselves.
MarkTheGreat on December 4, 2008 at 1:39 PM
A little O/T: Rush just played a parody mocking Barney Frank called “Banking Queen” (to the tune of “Dancing Queen,” natch). Funny stuff.
CP on December 4, 2008 at 1:39 PM
UAW just about = the NEA
The only difference is state law in teacher contracts.
I am a member of the NEA-but only grudgingly. It’s for the liability insurance in case some wacko money grubbing parent tries to sue me.
It’s also bcs in ND (SD,too-& maybe others) we teachers have little protection from the administration. They don’t like us, they can lie through their teeth about us in evaluations & we can’t do anything about it other than post a rebuttal next to the bad eval in our files.
But I HATE the NEA’s idea all teachers should be making the same $$ for the same years, same degree, etc.
It’s crap. I want to paid for what I am WORTH to my school district.
As a science teacher, there were only 2 applicants for my job-me & my sister-in-law! And I was may more qualified than she was.
If I wasn’t here, I bet my school would have a helluva time finding a replacement who can “teach it all” under No Child Left Behind.
So does my district value me enough to give me incentive pay?
No.
It’s a good thing I’m doing this job for reasons other than $$
Unions are worthless in my opinion based on my experience.
They bring all production down to a level of mediocrity.
Badger40 on December 4, 2008 at 1:40 PM
Nahh. Oil would just plummet in price.
I got a lotta horses I can ride to work & do my chores with if I have to.
I’m ready for it.
Badger40 on December 4, 2008 at 1:42 PM
I spoke with a UAW member that works at the GM plant here in Arlington, TX and he told me that “I needed to understand that this wasn’t a bailout, it was just a loan.”
Dear god please can you people come up with better material. Its a bailout, its a joke, and as far as I am concerned, let the giants fall so the UAW can fall too with any luck. Then you let in workers who actually care about their company and spend less time complaining about how they’re being screwed over. Please. You make 3 times more than the average american worker. You’re barking up the wrong tree.
Amen.
lgodfrey88 on December 4, 2008 at 1:43 PM
“With check card, it won’t be long until everyone is forced to join a union.”
If that’s true, we all won’t have to worry about buying cards anymore, because we’ll all be in “job banks”.
The surest way to doom our country is to saddle us with unions. We’ll all be planting radishes in a Great Leap Forward.
NoDonkey on December 4, 2008 at 1:44 PM
The two terms are not mutually exclusive.
If the big 3 did end up going out of business. The plants won’t disappear. The workers won’t vaporize.
Someone else will buy the plants. Someone else will hire the workers. The only difference will be the workers will have to make a real wage, not the gold plated wage they have gotten used to.
It will not be a disaster, except to those who have grown soft and lazy.
MarkTheGreat on December 4, 2008 at 1:46 PM
More robbery of taxpayers?
MB4 on December 4, 2008 at 1:47 PM
Absolutely right! There is a BIG difference between those at the UAW and parasites. Parasites are much less costly and much easier to get rid of.
MB4 on December 4, 2008 at 1:52 PM
“These are American workers you people are talking about–not parasites.”
American “workers” who have funneled millions upon millions of dollars to the absolutely worthless Democrat Party politicians, the traitorous scum who willfully undermined our Commander in Chief and the US military during a time of war.
Democrats and those who funded their election got good men and women killed in a war they knew was necessary, all for crass political gain.
UAW members and any other union that funds the election of Democrats, can go take a flying leap into abject poverty in North Korea for all I care and they can take their pocketful of Democrats along with them. F-all of ‘em.
NoDonkey on December 4, 2008 at 1:59 PM
I can’t remember who brought it up but I once heard someone say that too many Union workers forget they work for their employer and not for the Union. It’s a mentality that seems to fit many Union workers.
Yakko77 on December 4, 2008 at 2:05 PM
More lame attempts at pithiness from the simpering, pillow biting, leeches-on-the-underbelly-of-polite-society faction, I see.
Begone, back to your furries convention and trouble us no more, vile bohemian.
Sugarbuzz on December 4, 2008 at 2:09 PM
I’m sorry. I don’t see that these UAW concessions (as presented here) hit the mark of the problem. How is selling out retirees and new employees really addressing the issue of the negative impacts that union contracts with current workers have on the bottom line? I’ve seen outrageous numbers thrown around for hourly wages (that come out to salaries in excess of $170K/year) and heard about guaranteed wages for workers who are doing nothing. Are those things true or not? It seems to me that the culture of unions needs to change in order for these companies to become more competitive.
Y-not on December 4, 2008 at 2:15 PM
That’s not going to go over well. Public opinion might even force Congress to cut down a little on AIG’s next bailout.
forest on December 4, 2008 at 2:28 PM
Grow Fins,
It doesn’t have anything to do with GOP shills. This is the time for liberals to understand the basic laws of economics. It doesn’t make any sense for the majority of Americans to subsidize the very high,unskilled union wages of people making more than the average American.
Grow a brain.
Star20 on December 4, 2008 at 2:32 PM
That’s fine, all I’m saying is $70,000 is the wrong price to use for comparison. The average transaction price on a nicely equiped Corvette is between 40 and 48k…not 70k as you stated. Sorry if that scraps your analysis but you just compared a 1972 apple with a 2008 orange even if both fruits say Corvette on the side.
Youngs98 on December 4, 2008 at 2:33 PM
98, for clarity, it that average transaction price on factory-new vehicles? If so, what is the source? Also, a specific definition of “nicely equiped” would help in the analysis. Do you have one?
DarkCurrent on December 4, 2008 at 3:00 PM
We will be buying a lot more US-built Hondas. How will that be disastrous for the rest of us? There is an opportunity to turn the big-3 around, but not with the UAW in there.
pedestrian on December 4, 2008 at 3:09 PM
What we need is a Reagan to tell the unions to go suck eggs.
pedestrian on December 4, 2008 at 3:11 PM
I understand your feelings, but Ford is not really taking a bailout. They’re not even asking for a loan right now, although the are asking the gov. to make available a comparatively paltry $4B line of credit ‘just in case’. I’d think you could still buy a Ford with a clear conscience.
RegularJoe on December 4, 2008 at 3:31 PM
The Corvette is Chevrolet’s flagship vehicle. In 86 it was the first GM product with Anti-lock brakes, the 2003 50th anniversay addition was the first to have magnetic selective ride control now used on Cadillacs and most recently the Ferrari 599 barrows and uses the exact same system (developed by Delphi)–there are numerous other examples. So under ANY definition of “nicely equipped,” the base model Corvette should certainly qualify. I’ve owned 2. In my research of the vehicle and its options I found the average base model (44k base msrp) to come in at around 40 after negotiating and settled on a stickered 54k car for about 49k. Since I have better things to do than research the corvette museum and numerous other Corvette enthusiast sites that I frequent, you’ll just have to take my word as the source for the average new model transaction price…it’s about what the base MSRP sticker is–44k.
Youngs98 on December 4, 2008 at 3:44 PM
Oh no you won’t. Not for a few years anyway. Out of the 250 million cars on US roads today, 66 million are GM brands–44 million more than Toyota. If GM ceases to make cars, supply and demand dictates that the price of the remaining vehicles will skyrocket, will sell out, and the remaining automakers will take years to ramp up to meet the hole left by GM–let alone Ford and Crysler. The big 3 are still 50% of US market share. These are cars–highly complex machines, not screwdrivers.
Youngs98 on December 4, 2008 at 3:54 PM
What happens to a taxpayer when he decides to go on strike?
jay12 on December 4, 2008 at 4:16 PM
But we’re supposed to believe that throngs of people WILL buy cars from companies within days (if you believe them) of complete financial collapse without a taxpayer funded bail-out?
What a load! They (and it looks like the UAW, now) will say anything for a few billion $.
I don’t blame the big 3 or the UAW. I blame congress and the Prez for even making this an option! Hell, I’d do or say any damn thing it took if I thought someone might reward me with 25 Billion dollars!
edgehead on December 4, 2008 at 5:04 PM
Amazing.
Maybe there is some hope for the country after all.
Now that the UAW has grown a brain, what about the Media, Educators, Politicians and Trial Lawyers?
Is it possible, they could grow brains as well?
notagool on December 4, 2008 at 5:04 PM
But this is meaningless. The real point is the trend. How many of those GM cars are 10+ years old? 20+ years? And what are the same numbers for Toyota?
But the point that you’re not getting is that – ultimately – supply and demand will be the forces behind GM ceasing to make cars. It’s not the responsibility of the American taxpayer to subsidize GM/UAWs refusal to acquiesce to the realities of the laws of economics.
This isn’t rocket science: American consumers have a choice between reliable foreign-made cars and sh-tty American-made cars, all for basically the same price. More and more, consumers are choosing the reliable foreign-made cars. Period. Why can’t US cars compete in quality? Because in order for US automakers to pay the ridiculously exorbitant wages and benefits of their unskilled workers, they have to skimp on quality. What’s the answer? Trim down those excessive wages and benefits to levels that the market dictates…not unions, not Democrats…which will then free up money for a) improving the quality of US cars while b) maintaining a competitive price.
If they do those things, they will succeed. If they don’t, they will fail. And no amount of double-talk, “turnaround” plans, bailouts, or whining is going to change that.
rvastar on December 4, 2008 at 5:06 PM
I fully agree with most of what has been said about the Union’s greed causing some/most of the problem.
But sometimes you have to factor in the human side of things. We tend to look at the unions as an “It” instead of being made up of living , breathing human being’s. Would I take a large paying , 8hr a day job, with tons of goodies, YOU Bet !!! Would I ever join a union on my free will? NOT on your life.
The union leaders have done alot of really bad things in there days and there is no excuse for a lot of what THEY have did.
Some would say ” the chickens are coming home to roost”
BruceB on December 4, 2008 at 5:07 PM
Then I’ll buy Japanese! Or I simply won’t buy at all.
edgehead on December 4, 2008 at 5:08 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »