A Car Wreck Made in Washington
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 178
Yes, govt. bureaucracy is bloated & inefficient. That's prety much true for all govt.'s However let me answer your ? in reverse & name 2 things private industry does that cost more than when the govt. did it. Building military bases & doing laundry. Those bases in Iraq that KBR built are substandard & overbudget. This used to be done by the corp of engineers, but Halliburton smelled a profit. Now we have soldiers being electrocuted to death in their own showers due to shoddy workmanship. The soldiers used to do their own laundry, but those stationed in Iraq have been ORDERED to let KBR do it for them at a cost to the govt. of $100 PER BAG! And according to the soldiers their uniforms come back just as grungy as when they turned them in. You may not trust big govt. due to it's bureaucracy, but I don't trust big business due to it's profit 1st motive. No one running a govt. agency gets rich unless they're taking bribes, which gets the profit motive out of the way. While I am sorry about your grandmother, unfortunately people get neglected to death by the bureaucracy here too. I'm afraid that there is no system to keep something like that from happening.
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,938
...And while socialized medicine may be sub-standard compared to SOME private health care plans, There are millions of working americans who can't afford a health care plan at all, let alone 1 of the good plans! So for them socialized health care, for all it's problems, would be a godsend. BTW the plan would've been pais for same way as Social Security with a health care income tax that would probably be lower than most private plans premiums.
I also don't buy the "can't afford it" mantra...good health care insurance coverage is expensive but I've had too many people tell me they "can't afford" such things as health care insurance even while they have one or two late model cars, sat or cable Hi-Def TV on a 50"+ plasma living in a house that is twice the size of what they actually need. In other words, there are a lot of people who can afford health care insurance but have made other choices - and at least for me, their other choices don't make me feel obligated to provide health care insurance for them.
Last edited by Robert_Nashville; Nov 30, 2008 at 10:49 PM.
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,938
Sounds like an excellent reason to NOT give GM/Ford/Chrysler one penny of taxpayer money then.
Last edited by Robert_Nashville; Nov 30, 2008 at 10:49 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,400
From: Michigan's left coast
). One of the principles of Fordism is that workers need to be able to afford to buy the products that they create, or else the market for those products can't grow. Seeing as how a $30K is marginally affordable for someone who's making $60K/year, I'd suggest that we not try to drive wages much lower unless we want to see a much smaller new-car market in this country.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,698
From: USA
It does not take a rocket scientist to see that if you have to pay someone $70-100 hour in benefits and salary to screw a screw...and you competitor pays $20-40 to have the same thing done...you have a problem.
The problem here is...by caving to the unions over the years, GM created an entire upper middle class based on factory jobs which are typically lower middle class. Now is where the painful correction happens
The problem here is...by caving to the unions over the years, GM created an entire upper middle class based on factory jobs which are typically lower middle class. Now is where the painful correction happens
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,178
From: Payson, AZ USA
Yes, govt. bureaucracy is bloated & inefficient. That's prety much true for all govt.'s However let me answer your ? in reverse & name 2 things private industry does that cost more than when the govt. did it. Building military bases & doing laundry. Those bases in Iraq that KBR built are substandard & overbudget. This used to be done by the corp of engineers, but Halliburton smelled a profit. Now we have soldiers being electrocuted to death in their own showers due to shoddy workmanship. The soldiers used to do their own laundry, but those stationed in Iraq have been ORDERED to let KBR do it for them at a cost to the govt. of $100 PER BAG! And according to the soldiers their uniforms come back just as grungy as when they turned them in. You may not trust big govt. due to it's bureaucracy, but I don't trust big business due to it's profit 1st motive. No one running a govt. agency gets rich unless they're taking bribes, which gets the profit motive out of the way. While I am sorry about your grandmother, unfortunately people get neglected to death by the bureaucracy here too. I'm afraid that there is no system to keep something like that from happening.
BTW, Canadian healthcare has been in the red since its beginnings. Also, they are losing doctors and specials in hoards, since they can barely afford to pay their student loans with what the government is paying them.
Oh, I have been in the US for 43 of my 44 years. Thus, I have plenty of experience with our healthcare system.............. and am happily paying my $502 a month, for my family of three, for health insurance. I also do not go to the doctor unless it is absolutally necessary. Thus, there are no doctor visits for sniffles and low fevers for my 6-year-old.
Yes our system needs alot of work. However, the alternative, is terrifying (I don't think I can afford it, and we are comfortably middle class).
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,938
In the cross-hairs: UAW contract-GOP will demand workers' sacrifice
From Today's AUTOMOTIVE NEWS...
In the cross-hairs: UAW contract - GOP will demand workers' sacrifice: End of Jobs Bank?
By Harry Stoffer; Automotive News
December 1, 2008 - 12:01 am ET
In the cross-hairs: UAW contract - GOP will demand workers' sacrifice: End of Jobs Bank?
By Harry Stoffer; Automotive News
December 1, 2008 - 12:01 am ET
Before voting on aid to ailing automakers, Republicans in the Senate will take aim at the UAW and some benefits that many Americans find excessive.
Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., a moderate hoping to help Detroit, told Automotive News the UAW will have to join auto executives in making sacrifices. Likely to be targeted by Bond and other Republicans: the Jobs Bank — the UAW equivalent, in the public's mind, of corporate jets.
"Management, workers and investors are going to have to make sacrifices if they truly want to turn around their companies enough to earn taxpayer help," Bond told Automotive News last week in an e-mail message.
The Jobs Bank requires the Detroit 3 to pay nearly full wages to hourly workers who have been laid off. Although the number of workers in the Jobs Bank has dwindled, the concept has become a powerful symbol of auto industry excess.
General Motors is likely to propose its elimination, says a source familiar with the company's thinking.
Last week Bond did not spell out precisely which concessions he expects from the UAW. But during the congressional debates, many GOP lawmakers singled out the Jobs Bank as a wasteful Detroit 3 practice.
The UAW was notably missing from a list of stakeholders that congressional Democrats expect to make sacrifices in return for emergency loans. Those sacrifices were detailed in a Nov. 21 letter from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
Republicans seem certain to address that oversight in a Wednesday, Dec. 3, Senate hearing. The House is scheduled to discuss the bailout Friday, Dec. 5.
The Bush administration supports Bond's bill, which is co-sponsored by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich. Administration officials said last week that the companies' viability plans must address "labor, management and legacy costs."
Democrats control both houses of Congress, but Senate Republicans could block an aid bill with a filibuster. Bond and other Republican Senate moderates — some of whom already have endorsed Bond's bill — seem certain to be crucial "swing" votes.
And during hearings last month, Republican senators asserted that union givebacks are fundamental to any Detroit 3 aid plan.
"The enormous costs in union-required benefits are unsustainable," said Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C. "Renegotiating these contracts would be essential if there were to be hope of keeping these companies afloat."
Added Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah: "Hourly workers are going to have to have their contracts renegotiated, and some of them are going to lose their jobs."
Bank shot
The Jobs Bank costs the Detroit 3 automakers $478 million a year, estimates Mark Perry, an economics professor at the University of Michigan-Flint. Even if that program is eliminated, the union may be asked to accept additional concessions to fulfill Congress' notion of shared sacrifice.
Himanshu Patel, an auto industry analyst with JPMorgan, calculated the concessions necessary for GM to break even at an annual industry sales rate of 13 million vehicles.
Patel assumed that financial concessions would be split evenly between GM's unions and creditors. With that in mind, he concluded that average wage-and-benefit costs would have to drop from $60 an hour to $44.
On Nov. 10, GM CEO Rick Wagoner told Automotive News that he was not inclined to reopen the company's labor contract. Last week, company spokesman Greg Martin said GM's plan will reflect "shared sacrifice," but he declined to comment on labor provisions.
The union did not respond to a request for comment.
'Only game in town'
Democrats have a 50-49 advantage in the Senate, counting two independents who generally vote with Democrats. Sixty votes are needed to avert a Senate filibuster and pass controversial measures.
Bond told Automotive News his aid proposal is "the only plan that has a chance to be signed into law." It would convert a pool of $25 billion already approved for factories to retool for fuel-efficient vehicles into emergency loans for the Detroit 3. The compromise would replenish the retooling program later.
In addition to Bond and Levin, the bill is co-sponsored by Democrats Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Robert Casey Jr. of Pennsyslvania, as well as Republicans George Voinovich of Ohio and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Voinovich calls the measure "the only game in town," an aide told Automotive News last week.
A senior congressional staffer close to the issue predicted the bill would get more than 60 Senate votes. The bill could come to a vote as early as next week.
Democratic congressional leaders object to a diversion of the retooling money. Instead, they want to carve out $25 billion in loans to the Detroit 3 out of the $700 billion bailout fund for financial institutions. The Bush administration rejects that approach.
The Senate Banking Committee and House Financial Services Committee have scheduled hearings this week on the Detroit 3 plans. If Congress accepts the plans, lawmakers would consider aid legislation next week.
Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., a moderate hoping to help Detroit, told Automotive News the UAW will have to join auto executives in making sacrifices. Likely to be targeted by Bond and other Republicans: the Jobs Bank — the UAW equivalent, in the public's mind, of corporate jets.
"Management, workers and investors are going to have to make sacrifices if they truly want to turn around their companies enough to earn taxpayer help," Bond told Automotive News last week in an e-mail message.
The Jobs Bank requires the Detroit 3 to pay nearly full wages to hourly workers who have been laid off. Although the number of workers in the Jobs Bank has dwindled, the concept has become a powerful symbol of auto industry excess.
General Motors is likely to propose its elimination, says a source familiar with the company's thinking.
Last week Bond did not spell out precisely which concessions he expects from the UAW. But during the congressional debates, many GOP lawmakers singled out the Jobs Bank as a wasteful Detroit 3 practice.
The UAW was notably missing from a list of stakeholders that congressional Democrats expect to make sacrifices in return for emergency loans. Those sacrifices were detailed in a Nov. 21 letter from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
Republicans seem certain to address that oversight in a Wednesday, Dec. 3, Senate hearing. The House is scheduled to discuss the bailout Friday, Dec. 5.
The Bush administration supports Bond's bill, which is co-sponsored by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich. Administration officials said last week that the companies' viability plans must address "labor, management and legacy costs."
Democrats control both houses of Congress, but Senate Republicans could block an aid bill with a filibuster. Bond and other Republican Senate moderates — some of whom already have endorsed Bond's bill — seem certain to be crucial "swing" votes.
And during hearings last month, Republican senators asserted that union givebacks are fundamental to any Detroit 3 aid plan.
"The enormous costs in union-required benefits are unsustainable," said Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C. "Renegotiating these contracts would be essential if there were to be hope of keeping these companies afloat."
Added Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah: "Hourly workers are going to have to have their contracts renegotiated, and some of them are going to lose their jobs."
Bank shot
The Jobs Bank costs the Detroit 3 automakers $478 million a year, estimates Mark Perry, an economics professor at the University of Michigan-Flint. Even if that program is eliminated, the union may be asked to accept additional concessions to fulfill Congress' notion of shared sacrifice.
Himanshu Patel, an auto industry analyst with JPMorgan, calculated the concessions necessary for GM to break even at an annual industry sales rate of 13 million vehicles.
Patel assumed that financial concessions would be split evenly between GM's unions and creditors. With that in mind, he concluded that average wage-and-benefit costs would have to drop from $60 an hour to $44.
On Nov. 10, GM CEO Rick Wagoner told Automotive News that he was not inclined to reopen the company's labor contract. Last week, company spokesman Greg Martin said GM's plan will reflect "shared sacrifice," but he declined to comment on labor provisions.
The union did not respond to a request for comment.
'Only game in town'
Democrats have a 50-49 advantage in the Senate, counting two independents who generally vote with Democrats. Sixty votes are needed to avert a Senate filibuster and pass controversial measures.
Bond told Automotive News his aid proposal is "the only plan that has a chance to be signed into law." It would convert a pool of $25 billion already approved for factories to retool for fuel-efficient vehicles into emergency loans for the Detroit 3. The compromise would replenish the retooling program later.
In addition to Bond and Levin, the bill is co-sponsored by Democrats Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Robert Casey Jr. of Pennsyslvania, as well as Republicans George Voinovich of Ohio and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Voinovich calls the measure "the only game in town," an aide told Automotive News last week.
A senior congressional staffer close to the issue predicted the bill would get more than 60 Senate votes. The bill could come to a vote as early as next week.
Democratic congressional leaders object to a diversion of the retooling money. Instead, they want to carve out $25 billion in loans to the Detroit 3 out of the $700 billion bailout fund for financial institutions. The Bush administration rejects that approach.
The Senate Banking Committee and House Financial Services Committee have scheduled hearings this week on the Detroit 3 plans. If Congress accepts the plans, lawmakers would consider aid legislation next week.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,132
From: Santa Clara, CA
I'd asked what's wrong with 55k-60k per year for a UAW job.
I think it's great that someone who makes a career of auto assembly can afford to buy a house and have two cars in the garage.
I agree. Pushing wages ever downward to where only a few can afford the nice things in life does not seem like a good future to work for. I don't know how to avoid that -- just that it's worth avoiding.
But that doesn't fit the narrative of squeezing the wages of the middle class in the name of "lower prices". Hasn't worked out quite as advertised, and the men that built this country (such as Henry Ford) are probably rolling in their graves - but the upper 1% is doing better than ever (or at least was up until the latest "asset deflation" ).
One of the principles of Fordism is that workers need to be able to afford to buy the products that they create, or else the market for those products can't grow. Seeing as how a $30K is marginally affordable for someone who's making $60K/year, I'd suggest that we not try to drive wages much lower unless we want to see a much smaller new-car market in this country.
). One of the principles of Fordism is that workers need to be able to afford to buy the products that they create, or else the market for those products can't grow. Seeing as how a $30K is marginally affordable for someone who's making $60K/year, I'd suggest that we not try to drive wages much lower unless we want to see a much smaller new-car market in this country.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,463
From: SoCal
These are the painful growing pains as American prosperity is dissolved across the worlds economies. We shouldn't have begrudged the UAW for gaining a good rate and work conditions we should have embraced it. The mindset shouldn't be they have too much rather than we need to do what it takes to get there. The rest of the world wants everything we have and is working very hard to get it. All while we're sitting here pointing fingers at each other and what we think they should or shouldn't have. It’s no wonder our American business model didn’t work.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,579
From: The Land of Pleasant Living
These are the painful growing pains as American prosperity is dissolved across the worlds economies. We shouldn't have begrudged the UAW for gaining a good rate and work conditions we should have embraced it. The mindset shouldn't be they have too much rather than we need to do what it takes to get there. The rest of the world wants everything we have and is working very hard to get it. All while we're sitting here pointing fingers at each other and what we think they should or shouldn't have. It’s no wonder our American business model didn’t work.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 2,224
From: CNY
These are the painful growing pains as American prosperity is dissolved across the worlds economies. We shouldn't have begrudged the UAW for gaining a good rate and work conditions we should have embraced it. The mindset shouldn't be they have too much rather than we need to do what it takes to get there. The rest of the world wants everything we have and is working very hard to get it. All while we're sitting here pointing fingers at each other and what we think they should or shouldn't have. It’s no wonder our American business model didn’t work.
If the American public took that energy that they use to deride the UAW and it's workers and trying to drag them down; if they take that energy and use it to raise THEMSELVES up to where the UAW is, that to me would make sense.
It's not that the UAW workers make too much. Everybody else makes too little.
People should be fighting tooth & nail to get more. But they're too willing to except "well, that's just the way it is".
Fight, damn it!!!
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 499
From: Miami, Fl USA
GM's decades long mismanagement, along with UAW's avaricious demands (jobs bank? Full pay to play cards? For thousands and thousands of employees? Come on!) led us to where we are today. I think Wagoner had the right idea by de-emphasizing trucks when he did. Had he followed Zarella's desire to build nothing but trucks, we would not be having this discussion as there would be no General Motors. GM is making some desirable product right now. Wagoner dropped the ball by caving to Pontiac dealers who asked for models that would do nothing but compete with Chevys. 4 different Lambda Crossovers? A Cobalt platform-mate? Either GM itself does not have an idea how to properly differentiate its different nameplates, or it just can't be done. Either way management should have recognized and addressed this years ago.
If GM's contractual obligations with its dealer network, or its obligations to the UAW can't be restructured or eliminated, allowing GM to shed some of its excess production and marketing capacity without paying huge amounts to do so, then maybe a Chapter 11 reorganization is what is needed to save it.
If GM's contractual obligations with its dealer network, or its obligations to the UAW can't be restructured or eliminated, allowing GM to shed some of its excess production and marketing capacity without paying huge amounts to do so, then maybe a Chapter 11 reorganization is what is needed to save it.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 499
From: Miami, Fl USA
Great point.
If the American public took that energy that they use to deride the UAW and it's workers and trying to drag them down; if they take that energy and use it to raise THEMSELVES up to where the UAW is, that to me would make sense.
It's not that the UAW workers make too much. Everybody else makes too little.
People should be fighting tooth & nail to get more. But they're too willing to except "well, that's just the way it is".
Fight, damn it!!!
If the American public took that energy that they use to deride the UAW and it's workers and trying to drag them down; if they take that energy and use it to raise THEMSELVES up to where the UAW is, that to me would make sense.
It's not that the UAW workers make too much. Everybody else makes too little.
People should be fighting tooth & nail to get more. But they're too willing to except "well, that's just the way it is".
Fight, damn it!!!
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 176
From: Cleveland, OH
The BS the UAW caused in the 70's is now biting back. Pure and simple. Total garbage that people make too little compared to the UAW. It was a unsustainable situation that the union created. It wasn't real and couldn't last forever.
Recent concessions or other changes doesn't remove the responsibilty from the UAW. It played out exactly as expected as a overzealous union destroyed the underlying company from within. There was no reason nor balance.
Just poor choices for years.
Recent concessions or other changes doesn't remove the responsibilty from the UAW. It played out exactly as expected as a overzealous union destroyed the underlying company from within. There was no reason nor balance.
Just poor choices for years.
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,938
Unions, including the UAW; have done some very useful things and provided a needed service. However, as with almost every organization ever created; once they served their purpose; rather then disbanding; they just kept on going as if it were the 1950s and demanding ever increasing wages and benefits and various concessions while offering virtually nothing in return to the companies for those things.
Increases in wages and such should have been tied to increases in efficiency and lower costs in other areas…they were not. But…when it comes to their wages; I don’t believe it’s for you, me or anyone else to decide that they make “too much”.
How much is “enough” or “too much” should be decided by the marketplace; which frankly, is part of what has been happening to the Detroit Three for the past 30 or so years as foreign manufacturers have come into the U.S.; built plants and hired workers who were not unionized and built better cars for less cost.
The other player in this is GM, Ford and Chrysler management – it was within their power to say “NO” to the UAW; they didn’t and now we see the result.
The UAW has played a big part in Detroit’s problems but so has Detroit management.