Here's a "Crazy Idea for the Union Mess"

Have the workers vote to become Non-Unionized.

 

Un-freakin'-believable how one sided this board is at times.

The old 'it dem durn furriners' fault' simpleton mentality. If the big who-ever's-left is interested in protecting it's workers legacy costs and/or lowering operational costs, why don't they twist of arms of past CEO's, managers, etc, who's laziness/stubbornness/lack of vision/lack of acceptance of a changing market (jeez I could on forever) bad decisions got them into this mess to redo their retirement package?

 

Ok, in that case I disagree with you.

I defintely believe that we've bent over backwards in our effort to let foreign competition dominate our own industry, however, it's not the foreign competition's fault that the big 2.5 made a bunch of stupid promises.

Asking the imports to throw money at the Domestics' past business decisions is unacceptable.

Each automaker should deal with its own legacy costs.

If all manufacturers building/selling cars in the US were forced to work with the UAW and forced to contribute an amount proportionate to the amount of workers they currenty employ to a benifits fund, that might make a little more sense.

Sounds awfully socialist though.

 

See though...GM did not make mistakes. They gave decent deals to their employees so that people could live the american dream. Those people worked their whole life, and retired thinking that promise would be there. Now it is not so sure because we have allowed foriegn car makers with no obligations to the country, or it's citzens well come in, and compete on equal footing with a major national industry.

Your analogy is all scewed up. Put yourself in GM's place. What if you owned 50% of the automarket, and thought you were doing right by all your workers, and giving them a decent pay and retirement. You are cruising along, all fine and happy, untill the competition starts to heat up. Now all the sudden you have companies with cheap foreign labor, and no obligations selling cars cheaper than you. Since they have less overhead, they can put more into R&D, and their cars get better quicker than yours. American's embrace these cheaper, and gradually better cars because American is becoming less nationalistic. As GM, you want to compete...but you have an obligation to the large chunk of American workers who earn their living working for you...and want to live a nice American way of life. As you sell less cars, you lay off more workers. Your pension and healtcare costs soar. Now you have even less money to make better cars. It's a never ending spiral, and if someone does not do something, we will just see at least one of the big three go away.

The fact of the matter is...something like that above would never happen in a country like Japan. Most Japanese would never consider an American car to begin with...and the Japanese government is much more protective of it's industry.

 

I don't think they were stupid...I don't think anyone in the auto industry though GM would go from 50% marketshare to 25% marketshare in 20 years.

They were not "business decisions".....they were the right thing...and what would have been expected of any huge American company 20+ years ago.

There is not a simple way to deal with legacy costs. If you have 500,000 workers, paying the retirement benifits of a million retireees there is an imbalance that CANNOT be fixed with out major changes. You can pay retirees less...but that just depresses the the economy. The only way an automaker on it's own can fix the problem is to say screw it and go bankrupt. I lived in Baltimore...and know what happens when that occurs (Bethlaham Steel). What we are seeing now is a preview of Social Security in 20 years.

I don't think my plan is socialist. Matter of fact, i am willing to bet that if you check out the trade policies of the countries these cars are coming from...you will find the definition of nationalist.

 

I guess this would be true if you don't consider lack of planning, poor product, and a poor service experience mistakes. First, to assume you'll always be on top is a stupid thing to think.

It isn't a company's duty to give the American dream to anyone. It is their duty to pay you the market wage for your time. The big 2.5 have obviously overpaid their workers and commited to too much future debt. Notice how other companies are making cars here, and aren't in the same boat.

Where was the big 2.5's obligation to the consumer to make a good product? Where was their obligation to us to give us good service when buying or servicing our cars? If the domestic automakers were making products that people wanted and standing behind their products, they wouldn't have lost their market share.

Plus any company that simply assumes that they can give hand outs because they are on top today and doesn't have the vision that the market could shift deserves to be in the big 2.5's situation. I don't owe the big 2.5 or their workers anything other than paying into an unemployment fund.

Simply put, if they have a better product I will buy it. Brand loyalty left the building in 1980. Too bad they didn't realize this until 2000.

 

It's not so much as acknowledging that the foreigners are not at fault for Detroit's woes, it's about competing in the same market on equal terms.

The analogy is of refereeing a football game: You can't have one set of rules for one team and another set for the other team. The arena is today, not last year, last decade or last century. You don't continue to penalize a team based on past performances... otherwise the crowd would lose interest.

 

I think there are some misunderstandings...so please read this...

One thing I think people are missing is that the fund would initially funded by all the assests of the big 3's pension funds up front. As far as I know...none of the funds (except maybe Ford), are underfunded...so with proper investing management by the fund, the big three would still essentially pay for their chunk. We are talking $10's of billion's Detroit automakers would be putting in upfront. However going forward...any funding would be paid for by the fee...and distributed based on who is selling the most cars at the time. The reasoning is that the companies who are selling the most now need to be paying the most now (when those profits are realized) because more success now=more employees, and retirees later. I am not sure how this could be seen unfair or as a tax. As the big three's retiree's move on to better places, and Toyota, or whatnot gains more retirees in the system, they would gain more control.

It would actually give foriegn companies a reason to build more factories here because then they could throw more employees under the fund, and gradually gain some control on the board. If you were a foreign company, what would you rather do? Pay a fee that goes to someone else's workers...or move production capacity to the US, and have them paid for by this fund to?

Sounds like a decent way to fix the regressive pension issue that currently exists.

 

If GM could set up new factories with non union workers, they would be better off too.

 

They were STUPID if they thought that they will always have the biggest marketshare. Its their decisions that put them where they are now.

Saying they "did the right thing" is a relative term. Whether they did the right thing or not, they DID it, and they are the ones who should prosper or suffer because of it. They dug themselves a hole they cant get out of. Now you want to require their competition to lend a hand? Or maybe u want the competition to dig themselves a hole too?

 

No business ever plans to have half the marketshare. Did you even read my plan? This is not asking for a hand...the American makers will be funding the fund up front. The imports would be paying on a "going forward" basis.

 

The difference between locally based foreign makers and domestics is that there's always the option for foreign makers to pull out of NA altogether if the pension burden (over time) becomes too costly! What option do the Big 3 currently have, short of declaring bankruptcy?

No matter how hard I try to view it from both sides, I can't side with those who lay blame squarely at the feet of the Big 3 for their ineptitude in dealing with the unions of the past. GM's Ron Zarella and Roger Smith are long gone. It's pointless looking back at the mess they created... to say GM deserve to be where they are today. But the mess is not exclusive to just GM, it's the whole American car industry!!!

Imagine this hypothetical: If Toyota, Honda and Nissan were ever in similar financial trouble, would people here reason it would be due to 'irrelevant product' or more a function of the 'environment' they compete in? If this scenario is not plausible to many, remember, it was also inconceivable that GM would be relinquishing its global sales crown.

I like Branden's idea as it helps to even out the playing field. If there are flaws in its makeup then I'm sure they'll be sorted out over time.

 

What you don't see is that your employer has to match what you pay.

So together that is something like 15% of your salary.

 

.

 

I'm going to have a few thousand dollars of student loan debt.

What you seem to be suggesting is that other people in my field who happened to have had better financial situations should be obligated to help me pay my debt.

It would sure be nice, but it just doesn't work that way.