Corker plan gaining support?
12-12-2008, 02:14 PM
#31
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Posts: 6,166
Why not force import automakers to pay benefits Americans are used to making in America? Why are Americans asked to do the "bending over" so we can let the Japs manufacture here?? Its bad enough we ask our auto makers to compete equally against countries with less standard of living than ours.
I don't begrudge the UAW the wages and benefits they got in the golden age of the Big 3. But when the imports came in and found that there were enough laborers willing to work for wages far lower than what the UAW had negotiated, it set the Big 3 and the UAW on a long, slow, yet imminent path to disaster. You either slash to compete or you find yourself right here, right now.
12-12-2008, 02:44 PM
#32
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: CNY
Posts: 2,224
"•UAW workers for the Detroit 3 would have to accept the same pay, benefits and work rules as employees of import-brand factories."
Why not force import automakers to pay benefits Americans are used to making in America? Why are Americans asked to do the "bending over" so we can let the Japs manufacture here?? Its bad enough we ask our auto makers to compete equally against countries with less standard of living than ours.
Why not force import automakers to pay benefits Americans are used to making in America? Why are Americans asked to do the "bending over" so we can let the Japs manufacture here?? Its bad enough we ask our auto makers to compete equally against countries with less standard of living than ours.
If these transplants are going to get all these benefits and tax breaks, then they should pay the prevailing American auto worker wage & benefit.
12-12-2008, 02:49 PM
#34
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Posts: 6,166
As I said, the imports came in and found a workforce in the south that was WILLING to work for the lower wages. Those workers set the ultimate price bar for labor on an assembly line. Unfortunate for the UAW, and unfortunate for the Big 3, who could not compete with that kind of undercutting in a free market (free market meaning that the worker was free to take the lower wage offered if he/she wanted it).
12-12-2008, 03:36 PM
#35
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: CNY
Posts: 2,224
The problem with this situation is it creates a negative leap-frog situation.
Company A pays $30 per hour.
Company B comes in and pays $28 per hour.
Company A comes back at $25 per hour.
Then company C comes in at $20 per hour.
And so on.
There is no possible positive outcome that can come from this type of thinking.
What happens when one of the company gets to zero?
Our economy is based on people buying things. When wages get so low that the majority of people cannot afford even food, what will happen to us?
Company A pays $30 per hour.
Company B comes in and pays $28 per hour.
Company A comes back at $25 per hour.
Then company C comes in at $20 per hour.
And so on.
There is no possible positive outcome that can come from this type of thinking.
What happens when one of the company gets to zero?
Our economy is based on people buying things. When wages get so low that the majority of people cannot afford even food, what will happen to us?
12-12-2008, 04:47 PM
#36
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: northeast Miss.
Posts: 2,887
12-12-2008, 06:35 PM
#37
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,132
I can see both sides. On the one hand, if the government is lending money, it wants some confidence in getting it back. If GM's labor costs are higher than Toyota's, then that hurts GM's competitiveness.
The UAW doesn't like Toyota setting its wages, calling it a race to the bottom.
Both are right. But the history of the last 30 years is littered with dead companies where the labor side won the argument, and the corporation went out of business.
The UAW cannot force Toyota to increase its labor costs. All it can do is raise or lower GM's labor costs. I have to admit that I've not seen a convincing argument as to how GM is successful in the longer term with higher labor costs than Toyota.
So it is a race to the bottom, and if the UAW forces GM to lose, then GM will lose.
It isn't right. But it is what it is.
I think that Corker is right in dealing with things as they are, and the Democrats really don't want to come out and say what Corker is saying. Instead, they want to buy time with a loan and see if GM and Ford can survive with slightly higher costs or until there are enough $14/hour new hires to bring GM and Ford's costs into line with the transplants. Maybe that would work -- I can't say it wouldn't -- but there is a greater chance with the Corker plan.
The two-tier wage system is a way for current employees to keep their higher pay while forcing new employees to work for much less. I question how well that will work in the long run.
The UAW doesn't like Toyota setting its wages, calling it a race to the bottom.
Both are right. But the history of the last 30 years is littered with dead companies where the labor side won the argument, and the corporation went out of business.
The UAW cannot force Toyota to increase its labor costs. All it can do is raise or lower GM's labor costs. I have to admit that I've not seen a convincing argument as to how GM is successful in the longer term with higher labor costs than Toyota.
So it is a race to the bottom, and if the UAW forces GM to lose, then GM will lose.
It isn't right. But it is what it is.
I think that Corker is right in dealing with things as they are, and the Democrats really don't want to come out and say what Corker is saying. Instead, they want to buy time with a loan and see if GM and Ford can survive with slightly higher costs or until there are enough $14/hour new hires to bring GM and Ford's costs into line with the transplants. Maybe that would work -- I can't say it wouldn't -- but there is a greater chance with the Corker plan.
The two-tier wage system is a way for current employees to keep their higher pay while forcing new employees to work for much less. I question how well that will work in the long run.
12-12-2008, 06:38 PM
#38
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,132
The problem with this situation is it creates a negative leap-frog situation.
Company A pays $30 per hour.
Company B comes in and pays $28 per hour.
Company A comes back at $25 per hour.
Then company C comes in at $20 per hour.
And so on.
There is no possible positive outcome that can come from this type of thinking.
What happens when one of the company gets to zero?
Our economy is based on people buying things. When wages get so low that the majority of people cannot afford even food, what will happen to us?
Company A pays $30 per hour.
Company B comes in and pays $28 per hour.
Company A comes back at $25 per hour.
Then company C comes in at $20 per hour.
And so on.
There is no possible positive outcome that can come from this type of thinking.
What happens when one of the company gets to zero?
Our economy is based on people buying things. When wages get so low that the majority of people cannot afford even food, what will happen to us?
It will be something for the Obama administration to work on, though I don't see an easy answer. The problem in the U.S. is worse than the other industrialized economies, due to health care. But it's still a problem in Canada and western Europe.
12-12-2008, 07:04 PM
#39
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
Corker's plan makes some sense to me.
Especially when compared to the other plans:
Plan A) Here's a sh!tload of cash. Come back for more in a couple of months after you've exhausted it.
Plan B) Here's a sh!tload of cash. A bureaucratic stroke will now tell you what cars to build, where to build them, and what our favorite color is. Also, if our nutjob state governments want to impose arbitrary individual certification standards on said cars, you have to promise not to sue them.
Plan C) Chapter 11.
Especially when compared to the other plans:
Plan A) Here's a sh!tload of cash. Come back for more in a couple of months after you've exhausted it.
Plan B) Here's a sh!tload of cash. A bureaucratic stroke will now tell you what cars to build, where to build them, and what our favorite color is. Also, if our nutjob state governments want to impose arbitrary individual certification standards on said cars, you have to promise not to sue them.
Plan C) Chapter 11.
Last edited by Z284ever; 12-12-2008 at 07:08 PM.
12-12-2008, 07:16 PM
#40
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Golden State
Posts: 13,711
QUOTE=Z284ever;5732355 Corker's plan makes some sense to me.
Especially when compared to the other plans:
Plan A) Here's a sh!tload of cash. Come back for more in a couple of months after you've exhausted it.
Not an option unless the economy tanks even more
Plan B) Here's a sh!tload of cash. A bureaucratic stroke will now tell you what cars to build, where to build them, and what our favorite color is. Also, if our nutjob state governments want to impose arbitrary individual certification standards on said cars, you have to promise not to sue them.
An over the top example since the government is going to want to ensure profitability. But the whole thing is moot because if you don't get the money, you're dead. Get the money, make the changes, pay back as quick as possible and make what you want..... then again, if you're financially successful under the rules, you probably won't be too eager to change them
Plan C) Chapter 11.
Hate to say this, but at GM there is no such thing as Chapter 11. If GM goes bankrupt, since they will still need loans for reorganization (which they won't be able to get) they will wind up selling their assets to satisfy creditors. In short, the end of GM
Especially when compared to the other plans:
Plan A) Here's a sh!tload of cash. Come back for more in a couple of months after you've exhausted it.
Not an option unless the economy tanks even more
Plan B) Here's a sh!tload of cash. A bureaucratic stroke will now tell you what cars to build, where to build them, and what our favorite color is. Also, if our nutjob state governments want to impose arbitrary individual certification standards on said cars, you have to promise not to sue them.
An over the top example since the government is going to want to ensure profitability. But the whole thing is moot because if you don't get the money, you're dead. Get the money, make the changes, pay back as quick as possible and make what you want..... then again, if you're financially successful under the rules, you probably won't be too eager to change them
Plan C) Chapter 11.
Hate to say this, but at GM there is no such thing as Chapter 11. If GM goes bankrupt, since they will still need loans for reorganization (which they won't be able to get) they will wind up selling their assets to satisfy creditors. In short, the end of GM
12-12-2008, 07:28 PM
#41
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,132
Corker's plan makes some sense to me.
Especially when compared to the other plans:
Plan A) Here's a sh!tload of cash. Come back for more in a couple of months after you've exhausted it.
Plan B) Here's a sh!tload of cash. A bureaucratic stroke will now tell you what cars to build, where to build them, and what our favorite color is. Also, if our nutjob state governments want to impose arbitrary individual certification standards on said cars, you have to promise not to sue them.
Plan C) Chapter 11.
Especially when compared to the other plans:
Plan A) Here's a sh!tload of cash. Come back for more in a couple of months after you've exhausted it.
Plan B) Here's a sh!tload of cash. A bureaucratic stroke will now tell you what cars to build, where to build them, and what our favorite color is. Also, if our nutjob state governments want to impose arbitrary individual certification standards on said cars, you have to promise not to sue them.
Plan C) Chapter 11.
12-12-2008, 07:42 PM
#42
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: CNY
Posts: 2,224
Even Dick Cheney lobbied for the repub senators to pass the house bill.
He quoted as saying, "If you don't pass this, it will be Herbert Hoover time all over again."
Even he recognizes this is a dire situation.
He quoted as saying, "If you don't pass this, it will be Herbert Hoover time all over again."
Even he recognizes this is a dire situation.
12-13-2008, 04:54 AM
#43
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,132
$25/hour is better than unemployment. And it's nowhere near as bad as what Delphi was offering. (By the way, I've not heard anything about Delphi in the last year or so. What ended up happening there?)
The only thing to save things now is the Bush administration relenting on using TARP funds. Otherwise, it sounds like Chapter 11 by Dec 31. And I think we know what that leads to.
12-13-2008, 04:59 AM
#44
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 3,132
Hate to say this, but at GM there is no such thing as Chapter 11. If GM goes bankrupt, since they will still need loans for reorganization (which they won't be able to get) they will wind up selling their assets to satisfy creditors. In short, the end of GM
12-13-2008, 10:18 AM
#45
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: CNY
Posts: 2,224
Yes it is. It's so dire, that the UAW should have accepted wage parity with the transplants and then fought for pay increases once GM, et al, recover.
$25/hour is better than unemployment. And it's nowhere near as bad as what Delphi was offering. (By the way, I've not heard anything about Delphi in the last year or so. What ended up happening there?)
The only thing to save things now is the Bush administration relenting on using TARP funds. Otherwise, it sounds like Chapter 11 by Dec 31. And I think we know what that leads to.
$25/hour is better than unemployment. And it's nowhere near as bad as what Delphi was offering. (By the way, I've not heard anything about Delphi in the last year or so. What ended up happening there?)
The only thing to save things now is the Bush administration relenting on using TARP funds. Otherwise, it sounds like Chapter 11 by Dec 31. And I think we know what that leads to.
The 3 issues being;
1) what is parity? All the transplant plants have different pay scales. Toyota's oldest American plant pays BETTER than the UAW plants. So how do you determine parity? Gettlefinger said that it would be OK, but not before he was able to see all the books from all the plants to determine what parity truly was.
2) timing. Those few southern repub senators wanted the cuts immediately (even though Corker said in his press conferences, just give me a date in 2009; I don't believe that it was that simple in negotiations). Without letting the union do some analysis first.
3) where were the other stakeholders? Other than the bondholders, nobody else was asked to take a haircut in this proposal. The burden of this cannot be shouldered entirely by the workers.