Blame The Unions! They're Going To Ruin The Big 3!!!

PALEEEEEZE!

Obama couldn't make it anymore clear that the UAW and CAW, aka the big bad evil Unions made the sacrifices needed to get a deal done with Chrysler.

It's the big bad suits on Wall Street and the Union "haters" that forced Chrysler in to bankruptcy.

:think::shrug:

Wall Street may have forced them into bankruptcy this week, but a better question to ask is who got them to this point the last few years?

Wall Street may have forced them into bankruptcy this week, but a better question to ask is who got them to this point the last few years?

+11ty billion....and it wasn't just the suits running the company/ies

Wall Street may have forced them into bankruptcy this week, but a better question to ask is who got them to this point the last few years?

The management teams that left and took millions with them when they did.

Look the facts of the matter are this. Everytime there had to be concessions - there were from the Unions.

Everytime things were about to hit the fan, the Unions stepped in and put a stop to them.

It's always been the Unions giving more and more and more everytime. When's the last time you read that a bank wrote down "X" amount of dollars in debt to help the automakers?

Now when's the last time you read that the Unions accepted lower wages, high healthcare premiums and increased out of pocket cost for retirees? Seems I'm reading a new headline of the sort every few weeks.

Obama made it clear. Bondholders are the ones that put Chrysler in the place they are in now.

When the government already bailed out Wall Street, and saved their jobs, it wouldn't have hurt for a few hedge funds to take a hit to aid the process.

Personally, I think Chrysler will come out of this even stronger. I appreciate Obama urging the public to buy American cars. I thought he handled it well.

The rest of you can go forth and complain now.

Obama couldn't make it anymore clear that the UAW and CAW, aka the big bad evil Unions made the sacrifices needed to get a deal done with Chrysler.

While I might agree with you in principle, the idea of Obama actually saying anything otherwise about the UAW made me chuckle. As if he was going to criticize his party's golden goose.... :rolleyes:

I am pro autoworker. I want our autoworkers to have a decent lifestyle because that is good for the economy as whole. I feel the UAW has given more than it's share in this. I also don't blame them for fighting to keep their wages. The automakers gave it to them in the first place, and I think anyone here would fight having pay or benifits taken away. If GM could not afford it's union contracts, that is on GM's management. It is no different than buying a house too big and whining you can't afford your mortgage. Lastly, the autoworkers can only make what product GM gives them. They don't design the cars or hold control to the purse strings.

That being said, with the UAW as a major shareholder, the landscape changes greatly. The 800lb Gorilla issue here is that for GM to and Chrysler to survive long term, they have to make competitive and profitable small cars. The only solution I see here is that the UAW will have to allow workers in plants making small cars to take lower wages and less benifits. Maybe put the workers with the lowest tenure and pay in small car plants and over time they can graduate to be better paying jobs at plants that make more profitable cars?

If the cost structure cannot go down, small car production will have to go overseas in order to be competive...end of story. I was honestly surpised that Chrysler is gonna build the small car Fiat is giving them in a US plant. Maybe they already have something worked out labor wise to allow it to be profitable.

the owners had something to say. doesn't strike me as a bad idea, especially if it was my dime.


Now i realize from a union standpoint it's upsetting to have a finger pointed at you. "wall street" didn't force this. They are just acting on this.

Chrysler bankrupted itself. Just as GM did. In this industry union and management share the blame.

The UAW and CAW squeezed all they could for decades, until the automakers cost structure became uncompetitive. Poor management compounded the problem. As a reward, unions get controlling interest in Chrysler, and possibly GM next month. I wonder how Chrysler or GM will be able to compete if outsourcing is banned by the new management? Sure it will mean more US / Canadian jobs in the short term, but in the long run...

There is enough blame to go around. Unions wanting more and more and incompetent management. And this is why we let businesses fail. If you can't keep it together then you die. Plan and Simple.

Unions do both good and bad. I think it's safe to say workers had it VERY good for a very long time and that's a contributor to the position that unionized shops in the automotive industry are in today.

There have always been very influential and smart people in unions--underpaid, probably. And then there are those that were "being paid $27.50/hr to stick velcro on door panels." And you got the same benefits and raise as someone who did a bad job of sticking velcro on door panels. I think there were/are a lot of these types.

As stated, it's only a contributing factor to the mess that's unfolding today. But with any company, there are always jobs that don't support even a meager lifestyle. The system operates on "haves" and "have nots."

PALEEEEEZE!

Obama couldn't make it anymore clear that the UAW and CAW, aka the big bad evil Unions made the sacrifices needed to get a deal done with Chrysler.

It's the big bad suits on Wall Street and the Union "haters" that forced Chrysler in to bankruptcy.

Ignoring the how they got there part to bankruptcy part, VEBA is a large portion of what is owed by Chrysler and GM. I thought that is secured debt, but I could be wrong. Either way, the UAW is going to be one of the first creditors to be taken care of. And the suits on wall street will be taking their hits in bankruptcy as well.

BTW, I am not sure how "Union Haters" had anything to do with this.

Obama made it clear. Bondholders are the ones that put Chrysler in the place they are in now.

Yeah, and obama made it clear that he didn't know anything about those AIG bonuses. Nor did Senator Dodd. They were SHOCKED when they found out about them. SHOCKED

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

It seems to me that anyone who is making any sacrifices here is making just enough of a sacrifice to let the company get by and suck more money out of the governments of the US and Canada. The holders of the secured debt are being asked to make a sacrifice of about 71% of what they are owed. I don't think they are being unreasonable in turning it down.

If the cost structure cannot go down, small car production will have to go overseas in order to be competive...end of story. I was honestly surpised that Chrysler is gonna build the small car Fiat is giving them in a US plant. Maybe they already have something worked out labor wise to allow it to be profitable.


Can you say carbon tax?:yes:

Obama made it clear. Bondholders are the ones that put Chrysler in the place they are in now.

He also said the US invented the automobile. It doesn't make his opinion right.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2009-04-24-chrysler-bondholders-proposal_N.htm

It appears that the bond holders and Chrysler couldn't come up with a good number. I also don't know how loaning Chrysler money, and Chrysler not being able to pay it back is some who the bondholders fault.

The management teams that left and took millions with them when they did.

Look the facts of the matter are this. Everytime there had to be concessions - there were from the Unions.

Everytime things were about to hit the fan, the Unions stepped in and put a stop to them.

It's always been the Unions giving more and more and more everytime. When's the last time you read that a bank wrote down "X" amount of dollars in debt to help the automakers?

Now when's the last time you read that the Unions accepted lower wages, high healthcare premiums and increased out of pocket cost for retirees? Seems I'm reading a new headline of the sort every few weeks.

Obama made it clear. Bondholders are the ones that put Chrysler in the place they are in now.

No.

Lots of sacrifices have been made by salaried employees, suppliers, and dealers over the years. I know from personal experience.

The UAW will own Chrysler. I wish them luck, truly. Salaried employees appear not to have any stake in the company as the reorg has been described.

If you can ignore that the buying public has dictated cost cuts and outsourcing I think you ignore some very essential facts.

Either way you view the bond holders who have refused the government offer is your right.

Just explain in a rational and logical manner the taxpayer benefit in Chrysler being 55% UAW owned, up to 35% foreign owned, and 10% held by the folks footing the bill, IOW, the taxpayers? I'm sure there's equity. Just explain it for me.

It would appear to me that the UAW comes out pretty well in this. If Chrysler would have gone chapter 7 the UAW retirees would have been covered by the taxpayers. If Chrysler goes chapter 7 even after this, they still get taxpayer covered retirement and healthcare.

I would have thought there would be a bit more incentive given the UAW to make Chrysler work. Maybe, just maybe in exchange for 55% of the company they could take it as a make or break thing.

It will be instructive to see how the UAW views cost controls when they are in control. The again, they have a fall back, do they not?

I'm certain opinions will vary.

Don't convince yourself that this is not just the fight the White House wants.

It's a huge precedent making opportunity. I don't see this as some unexpected deal seeing as GM's reorg is coming up quickly.

I have no bone to pick with the UAW. My issue is with the decision making process of the government.

PALEEEEEZE!

It's the big bad suits on Wall Street and the Union "haters" that forced Chrysler in to bankruptcy.

That sir, is the the single dumbest thing I've read today...well, maybe you share that distinction with Dennis Kneale on CNBC.

The UAW will own Chrysler.

I still can't quite get my head around this. Somehow the old line "inmates running the asylum" pops in my head.

What happens at contract time, does the union bargain with itself? :p

I still can't quite get my head around this. Somehow the old line "inmates running the asylum" pops in my head.

What happens at contract time, does the union bargain with itself? :p

:shrug:

PALEEEEEZE!

Obama couldn't make it anymore clear that the UAW and CAW, aka the big bad evil Unions made the sacrifices needed to get a deal done with Chrysler.

It's the big bad suits on Wall Street and the Union "haters" that forced Chrysler in to bankruptcy.

Hey Josh, loan me a dollar...I promise I will pay you back plus interest. Just to add assurance, if I am unable to make the interest payments on your loan you can take me to court and make me sell my assets. You have first claim on any proceeds from my assets sold to pay you back your dollar.

Enter third party (Uncle Sam). Hey Josh, remember that promise I made to pay you back plus interest? Well funny story I can't. Further, the President of the U.S. and the UAW says I don't have to pay you back now, regardless of what the law says. In fact if you do not accept the President's and UAW's terms to only getting back 29 cents of your dollar loan, we will both call you greedy and un-American.

How do you like that Josh, I hope you do, because its for the sake of the country, and all the hungry kids that will have to go without in Detroit if you don't.

By the way, we, the UAW and the US government now expect you to lend us money in the future to build new environmentally friendly products. We look forward your cooperation, again, for the sake of the country and all that is holy. If you refuse then you will be considered greedy and it will be announced as such in major news outlets.

We look forward to our future "business" together, and our taking from you any amount of your money we see fit. We hope you enjoy your inability to use the law to petition for your rightful claim against our assets.

Your "service" will be appreciated by the faithful UAW employees and of course their hungry children.

Hey Josh, loan me a dollar...I promise I will pay you back plus interest. Just to add assurance, if I am unable to make the interest payments on your loan you can take me to court and make me sell my assets. You have first claim on any proceeds from my assets sold to pay you back your dollar.

Enter third party (Uncle Sam). Hey Josh, remember that promise I made to pay you back plus interest? Well funny story I can't. Further, the President of the U.S. and the UAW says I don't have to pay you back now, regardless of what the law says. In fact if you do not accept the President's and UAW's terms to only getting back 29 cents of your dollar loan, we will both call you greedy and un-American.

How do you like that Josh, I hope you do, because its for the sake of the country, and all the hungry kids that will have to go without in Detroit if you don't.

By the way, we, the UAW and the US government now expect you to lend us money in the future to build new environmentally friendly products. We look forward your cooperation, again, for the sake of the country and all that is holy. If you refuse then you will be considered greedy and it will be announced as such in major news outlets.

We look forward to our future "business" together, and our taking from you any amount of your money we see fit. We hope you enjoy your inability to use the law to petition for your rightful claim against our assets.

Your "service" will be appreciated by the faithful UAW employees and of course their hungry children.

:bow:

No.

Lots of sacrifices have been made by salaried employees, suppliers, and dealers over the years. I know from personal experience.

The UAW will own Chrysler. I wish them luck, truly. Salaried employees appear not to have any stake in the company as the reorg has been described.

If you can ignore that the buying public has dictated cost cuts and outsourcing I think you ignore some very essential facts.

Either way you view the bond holders who have refused the government offer is your right.

Just explain in a rational and logical manner the taxpayer benefit in Chrysler being 55% UAW owned, up to 35% foreign owned, and 10% held by the folks footing the bill, IOW, the taxpayers? I'm sure there's equity. Just explain it for me.

It would appear to me that the UAW comes out pretty well in this. If Chrysler would have gone chapter 7 the UAW retirees would have been covered by the taxpayers. If Chrysler goes chapter 7 even after this, they still get taxpayer covered retirement and healthcare.

I would have thought there would be a bit more incentive given the UAW to make Chrysler work. Maybe, just maybe in exchange for 55% of the company they could take it as a make or break thing.

It will be instructive to see how the UAW views cost controls when they are in control. The again, they have a fall back, do they not?

I'm certain opinions will vary.

Don't convince yourself that this is not just the fight the White House wants.

It's a huge precedent making opportunity. I don't see this as some unexpected deal seeing as GM's reorg is coming up quickly.

I have no bone to pick with the UAW. My issue is with the decision making process of the government.


A very sensible post.


We are in pretty uncharted territory here and frankly it makes me uneasy.

In the end the bond and shareholders will get little to nothing - in other words, the shaft. Good luck getting investors in the new entity. Oh yeah, we won't need any such capitalistic nonsense, after all the government and the UAW will own it.

I expect a similar story when this gets around to GM. As a shareholder, I will personally lose wealth. And I don't work on Wall Street, as if that would matter.

Hey Josh, loan me a dollar...I promise I will pay you back plus interest. Just to add assurance, if I am unable to make the interest payments on your loan you can take me to court and make me sell my assets. You have first claim on any proceeds from my assets sold to pay you back your dollar.

Enter third party (Uncle Sam). Hey Josh, remember that promise I made to pay you back plus interest? Well funny story I can't. Further, the President of the U.S. and the UAW says I don't have to pay you back now, regardless of what the law says. In fact if you do not accept the President's and UAW's terms to only getting back 29 cents of your dollar loan, we will both call you greedy and un-American.

How do you like that Josh, I hope you do, because its for the sake of the country, and all the hungry kids that will have to go without in Detroit if you don't.

By the way, we, the UAW and the US government now expect you to lend us money in the future to build new environmentally friendly products. We look forward your cooperation, again, for the sake of the country and all that is holy. If you refuse then you will be considered greedy and it will be announced as such in major news outlets.

We look forward to our future "business" together, and our taking from you any amount of your money we see fit. We hope you enjoy your inability to use the law to petition for your rightful claim against our assets.

Your "service" will be appreciated by the faithful UAW employees and of course their hungry children.


Man alive! You nailed it! :bow::bow:



This symbol comes to mind:
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:XEzMeI0jSmBWdM:http://www.russianlegacy.com/catalog/images/soviet_collection/flags/FS0088.jpg

I wouldn't get too wound up about this.

The UAW needs to have a sound investment strategy for the longterm, and that does not mean putting all of their assets into a single automaker. They will be selling off most of their holdings as soon as it's appropriate.

I still can't quite get my head around this. Somehow the old line "inmates running the asylum" pops in my head.

What happens at contract time, does the union bargain with itself? :p


I guess they will get whatever they ask for :no:

I wouldn't get too wound up about this.

The UAW needs to have a sound investment strategy for the longterm, and that does not mean putting all of their assets into a single automaker. They will be selling off most of their holdings as soon as it's appropriate.

And why would anyone buy these shares, considering the precedent set?

I wouldn't get too wound up about this.

The UAW needs to have a sound investment strategy for the longterm, and that does not mean putting all of their assets into a single automaker. They will be selling off most of their holdings as soon as it's appropriate.

In the case of Chrysler, FIAT comes to mind. If that's the case, where is the saving US industry part of this?

I wouldn't get too wound up about this.

The UAW needs to have a sound investment strategy for the longterm, and that does not mean putting all of their assets into a single automaker. They will be selling off most of their holdings as soon as it's appropriate.
Amen. I think there's a certain amount of hysteria going on... as if this were 1936. The UAW is vastly different today. I'm not saying they will be free of bonehead moves (prevous leaders had their share too BTW). But I do think they are going to be careful since the feds will not be able to continuously bail them out year after year, certainly not after the next midterm elections in 2010 (which could be nasty if the economy is still in the dumps, or cap-tax is causing big inflation, or some other blunder by the current crew in power).

I'm not normally a big defender of unions... even though I'm from a blue-collar family and my Dad was a union electrician for 37 years. But here, I don't see the big crime in the UAW having a significant stake in the company. It does give them an incentive to succeed and grow... and if they fail they will have no one to blame but themselves.

....I expect a similar story when this gets around to GM. As a shareholder, I will personally lose wealth. And I don't work on Wall Street, as if that would matter.
You already lost most of your GM share value, due to the global contraction etc. Why don't you sell all your GM stock tomorrow, and preserve the remaining capital? If you do, you will not lose wealth due to a GM bankruptcy. You're not, are you. That's because like every other common stock investor, you're willing to take a risk that the stock will gain someday. Or... it might be zero. That's the way stocks are... and that's why some people invest in gold instead.

You already lost most of your GM share value, due to the global contraction etc. Why don't you sell all your GM stock tomorrow, and preserve the remaining capital? If you do, you will not lose wealth due to a GM bankruptcy. You're not, are you. That's because like every other common stock investor, you're willing to take a risk that the stock will gain someday. Or... it might be zero. That's the way stocks are... and that's why some people invest in gold instead.


You are missing my point completely. The point here is that I'm a regular guy. A regular guy, who just like tens of thousands of other regular guys, invested in an auto company. I'm not a large, faceless, Wall street brokerage firm - but I may have used a broker to buy GM stocks and bonds.
Thousands or tens of thousands of regular guys like me, will take a cumulative several billion dollar hit one way or the other. So when Josh or BHO or anyone else, tries to frame this simply as a rich, greedy bank or brokerage firm vs the UAW, that's just plain wrong. There are LOTS of people with skin in this game - not just "Wall street" (which really is all of us) and the UAW.


This morning, GM's creditors offered to exchange their debt for GM stock - $27 billion worth. I sort of think that to be a good idea -- you know ---actually have business people familiar with making money being an influence on the other shareholders who are clueless on making money, namely the government and union. And maybe if all get a fair shake, when it's time to sell these shares publicly, institutions won't be afraid to buy them.

You are missing my point completely. The point here is that I'm a regular guy. A regular guy, who just like tens of thousands of other regular guys, invested in an auto company. I'm not a large, faceless, Wall street brokerage firm.
Thousands or tens of thousands of regular guys like me, will take a cumulative several billion dollar hit one way or the other. So when Josh or BHO or anyone else, tries to frame this simply as a rich, greedy bank or brokerage firm vs the UAW, that's just plain wrong. There are LOTS of people with skin in this game - not just "Wall street" (which really is all of us) and the UAW.

I understand the face of your claim (that regular folk lose out too). But it's the logic underpinning it that I differ with. EVERY shareholder is free at any time to sell. Thus, NO shareholders are required to lose wealth upon a GM CH 11 event. It's totally their choice. And if they stay in, well too bad - they knew the risks.

Charlie I never said the "you and i's" are the ones to blame. I, too happen to be a GM shareholder, I also happen to be a Union supporter. The major shareholders botched this and it was a small group that did.

I support the equity offer put on the table today because it keeps the White House out of GM. But I also support the UAW having a hand in how GM is ran and contrary to your belief, the UAW does know how to generate a profit. Their "war chest" is worth nearly a Billion, or at least was a few years ago.

There are some good and fair points made in this thread, so I'm not going to delete it. However, it was made political from the get-go and there's no way to clean it up. It ends here.

If anyone wants to start another thread to discuss the pros and cons of unions, feel free. Keep the parties, politics, and politicians out and I'll let it continue.