formula79

One again...it is the big threes pension funds that will fund this thing up front. Also Ford, GM, and DCX still sell over half the cars sold in this county, so they still will pay the majority of the fees. However moving forward, the plan would basically say that we are gonna fund everybody's pension moving forward based on who is selling the most cars now...not who sold the most cars 30 years ago. Again, as Toyota, Honda, BMW put more workers in this fund down the road, they will reap the same benifits GM, Ford, and DCX would get, along with more control of it. Also, this fund would give a chance to rip up some past contracts, and make the pensions fairer.

Also, like I said, it encourages factories to be built here, because the more US based workers you have...the more whose retirement benifits you can have the fund pay. That makes more sense for a foriegn company then keeping all your production overseas...and paying in a fund you reap no beneits from.

We can talk what is fair, and what is not all day long...but IMO, it is not fair that we allow foriegn companies to come in here compete on equal footing with american companies, and displace american workers. Then we expect our legacy companies to now pay for all of this huge amount of displaced workers with smaller revenues and a smaller workforce. Regardless of how much GM's product may have sucked for years, you put 15-10 competitors, where there were once 3, and someone is gonna sell a lot less cars.

America has been a free market for a long time, but I also think it is time that these foriegn companies take a little social responsibilty to gow with all the american dollars they make.

notgetleft

You still make no sense at all. The closest thing to making your idea fair would be to enact significant tariffs against cars/trucks built overseas from being shipped into this country. Then you would be truly making things fair for the american worker by making the foreign workers pay for the displaced americans directly.

Otherwise, your point about "encourages foreign companies to build more factories here" makes absolutely no sense at all. There is no tax break at all for them to produce the car here, and now you're tying their employees hands to buy into some garabage pension fund when they'd probably be happier to manage their own 401k's like most workers in this country are doing these days. Your plan does mean those foreign make employees will control less of their money. Why don't you just legislate that you have to be a member of teh UAW to build cars while you're at it.

I mean seriously, you give me a choice of a company managed pension vs. letting me invest my money myself, no contest which i'd choose. Now add in government managed pension and it becomes a laughable choice.

And bigger tariffs would affect the big 2.5 a lot as well considering the number of vehicles and parts that they build and source from overseas.

In the end, this plan is solely focused on bailing out the UAW and has absolutely no tangible benefits to the average american. Whether it be a tax on every car sold, or tariffs, or whatever, the ONLY people who would stand to gain anything woudl be UAW members.

With that in mind, perhaps they shoudl just disband, take a pay out from the currently funded pension plans you mention and invest their money themselves like every one else in america has to these days. Pensions are dead in this country

Aaron91RS

I don't think it's a bad idea overall, although it does go against the idea of 'free trade' which if it was the US going in to China we'd bitch an moan about their tariffs and taxes and piracy etc.

I think most peoples atittude on here is why should auto workers get all these benefits when most of the rest of us don't get these nice benefits anymore from our jobs?

I know my personal bias feeling is. I can do YOUR auto job, you CAN'T do my IT job. Justify why should you get more then me?

notgetleft

Right. Way too much, but it's the US auto industry!!!11111!!! going on here.

Yes it would be a shame if the big 2.5 were to go bankrupt because they crumbled under the weight of their previous bad decisions, but no more a shame than the *** loads of other americans who get laid off, or lose money on investments, etc every year.

I don;t think that would mean the end of the auto industry in this country though. Companies (including re-organized big 2.5) would fill in all the same voids as we have now, only without any UAW members in their factories, and wit their employees playing by the same rules as every other american work does these days.

edit, just realized i didn't share much wit the piece i quoted. For me it's not even about a bias of who can do who's job. It's just realism to the way all industry in this country works today, and that i completely fail to see any benefit to an extra tax being added to the price of a new car to bail out failing business with completely unrealistic union workers steering the ship right off the cliff.

formula79

The difference is american and foriegn automakers pay this fee.

If you were a foriegn automaker, and paying a fee on every vehicle you sold in the US that pays for the retirement of US based autoworkers...wouldn't it make more sense to have a lot of US workers that this fund would pay the retirement of, insead of overseas workers, which you have to foot the bill on, while still paying the fees. Makes perfect sense to me. Also, since the board that manages the fund would be made up of half worker representatives, they would have some control over it. The government would audit it to make sure there is no fraud...not control it.

I think if given a choice between a decent fixed pension plan, or a 401K, most people would take the pension. Plus...I have always seen 401K's as supplement to a decent pension...not a replacement. If you only have just a 401K, you have a shoddy retirement plan (IMO) that is tied to the well being of Wall Street. I really don't think that many people on their own could steer a 401K plan to beat a well managed fund managed by professional investors.


That is where you are confused. This is a fee attached to every vehicle sold in the US regardless of who makes it, or where it is made. GM, Ford, and Chrysler would be paying it too.

This is more about bailing out the big US automakers. But as for the people...there are millions of UAW retirees.

Any of the big three goes bankrupt and can't fund the pension plans....you have an economic disaster. On top of that...when they do go bankrupt...guess who pays for those pensions?

http://www.pbgc.gov/

Yup....that is a governement controlled, tax payer funded entity...and they pay retirees dimes on the dollar. Just ask the Bethlaham Steel retirees. I think my idea is a little better.

I really think your average worker would rather have a fund managed by people who know what they are doing rather than do it themself and risk loosing large sums in the stock market.

formula79

You already pay the fee on every american car you buy...it is built into the cost. All this does is redistributes it based on how many cars are being sold now, and gives everyone a little peice of the pie to pay.


You can bitch and moan about unions all you want...but these are people who worked for a middle class living their whole life. They buy worked for GM, and for the most part buy GM products. Pull the financial rug our from under them, and rip agreements up, and you have an economic disaster.

cmg06s

You guys are arguing like this "idea" is actually going to happen.

notgetleft

So you're going to double charge this fee to the big 2.5, after all, they're already paying into the system, so any new fee will surely be in addition to what they are already paying? Of course not, i was just being silly here

You must have a lot of UAW friends and family if that makes sense to you. All you're suggesting here is legislating that all american autoworkers are tied to the UAW through at least their pension plan. I doubt this would have as much of a desired effect as you think, and in the end just makes everybody's stuff more expensive, even the big 2.5 who now build so many cars out of the country with non-UAW workers.

No, i do have a pension plan through my company as well as a 401k, but i look at the pension like i do social security. It's likely going to be a joke by the time i retire. Pensions are dying in this country. You whine that a 401k is tied to the health of wall street. Well your pension is tied to the health of your company. I have a lot more faith that the american stock market is still going to exist in 35 years than i do in my company. And as such, i'd prefer to invest my money in the diversified stock market than soley into my company which could go bankrupt and leave me with next to nothing.

Better? Better for who? Oh, the UAW retirees. Right, i noticed that about your plan a while ago. It has no benefit to the average american.

This doesn't bail out the american auto companies. If the UAW wins such a major concession as a government bailout for the security of it's retirees, do you really expect me to believe they will stop trying to kill the big 2.5 every chance they get?

I'd just as soon watch the big 2.5 go bankrupt, tear up the UAW contracts and start over as i would to bail them out when they have done anything but accept the fact that they need to make major concessions for their own job security. If the UAW wants to drive teh big 2.5 off a cliff, that's THEIR problem, not mine.

BTW, remember earlier in this post when i pointed out that the big 2.5 make a lot of their cars overseas and in canada/mexico now? In the end this extra tax just increases their costs because now they have to pay even more into the UAW pension plan, rather than just having to pay in the employee part for their current workers. IOW, no benefit to the big 2.5

If the average worker realized how much more tenuous a pension is compared to a 401k they most certainly would not. It's pretty hard to screw up your 401k nearly as bad as your company going bankrupt or being sold out and split up would to your pension.

The fact that this entire thread was started in the name of how to save the UAW's pension plan really highlights just how secure pensions are, doesn't it.

formula79

Do you have a reading problem? They would put their current pension funds togethor to create the fund in the beginning. Then going forward the fee would be the source of income for the funds. After the initial consolidation, domestic automakers would pay into the fund through the fee...insead of making contributions to their pension funds like the do now.


I have no UAW friends and family. This is also no tie to the UAW. All pensions will be payed for by the fund, which would have a board made up equally of employees, and automakers. The actual seats would be distributed based on the number of employees the fund was currently paying. I am not sure how it would make anything costs more?

Tell that to all the people who delayed retirement because their 401K took a **** around 2001. 401K's are dangerous in that if the stock market takes a crap ALOT of people loose money. If your company takes a crap...the damage is much more localized.


Blah...UAW retirees are average americans...probaly 2 million plus of them. They suddenly have no income...we have an economic disaster that effects everyone.

I honestly could give a rats *** about the UAW. Unions were needed once, but not anymore. If the ideas I have were implemented, the UAW would become basically obsolete anyway.


[quote]This doesn't bail out the american auto companies. If the UAW wins such a major concession as a government bailout for the security of it's retirees, do you really expect me to believe they will stop trying to kill the big 2.5 every chance they get?[/quote[

Yeah...the UAW wants to kill the automakers that pay their pensions, and feed their families. You are making ZERO sense now.

How would you like it if you were promised a decent retirement, and then you company said..."Oh...wait a minute, you need to pay twice as much for healthcare because things or tight"....of "Oh, you get less retirement pay this year because things are tight". You are retired....there is nothing you can do...but fight for what you have. If you actually paid any attention, you would realized that the last few years, the UAW has fought to keep what was promised it...not gain anything new. While I think it is easy to sit on a keyboard, and say people are greedy...you view would be different if you lived on a fixed income in you 70's and had to pay twice as much for health insurance.

Gives them an advantage to make more cars in the US also...which is what we want

Stock market is just the same. I remember all the old people in my office having a fit around 2001, when the stock market went down, and their 401Ks lost 200,000+ in weeks.

formula79

Looks like something similar to my idea may happen.


http://money.cnn.com/2007/07/23/news...ex.htm?cnn=yes

5thgen69camaro

I know alot of thought went into this but its a bad idea. Toyota and Honda have no obligation to "unburden their competition." Just the oposite. Suppose the tables turn and its GMs turn to unburden Honda and Toyota?

I could see something being used to negotiate our way into Japanese market. The govt would have to say fair access to our maket = fair access to yours
I do believe if you sell here a percentage of your workforce should be mandated to be here. At least 30-40% Im including non auto companies...

but thats just my 2 cents

Aaron91RS

If they can get the UAW takes on healthcare it will be almost comical when the union is put in the position to cut benefits because they realize they can't afford it.

notgetleft

I guess you could look at it as 'similar' if you ignore that a big part of your idea was the foreign makes having to pay into the plan since they sell cars here and have displaced union workers.

Robert_Nashville

I think this is one of those ideas that “sound” good until you look beneath the surface and begin to realize all it implies.

The very concept of the government stepping in and controlling any specific industry’s retirement system is scary to say the least not to mention absolutely contrary to our economic system - the plan proposed is mostly social (in)security by another name but with an initial “fund” provided by existing pensions (which are already facing liabilities they can’t meet).

Does anybody here truly think the Government can solve this problem better than private industry? I guess some will but I certainly don’t.

Detroit’s problems are not an issue of “unfair competition” no matter how loudly or how often that mantra is proclaimed...foreign automakers have played by the rules established by the U.S. (often with the lobbying and approval of UAW/Detroit Big 3)…to come back now and say those rules were unfair because they didn’t break the way one group would have liked and saying now you’ve got to “pay up” is what would be truly unfair.

I don’t suggest there is an easy solution to the problems Detroit is facing but “Government” (or socialistic approaches such as universal healthcare, etc) are not the answer. At best, those can only treat the symptoms but will never cure the disease.

Caps94ZODG

Ohh no I agree with R.N. lol jk man.

But again yes it does sound good and it sounds possible to an extent. Not arguing with you man. I wish it was that simple..is it?? who knows..but again not arguing just nodding in agreing with you at least. Your points are valid but the thing is its the time and the destruction we have set in motion of what is presented now. Like mentioned import companies have been playing buy the rules WE set up. Seams like we should of changed the rules a long time ago. The big 3 should of made better cars in the 80's. Not the problem now but sure is the problem that was created out of this legacy cost.
If the U.S. treated its pride of being built here in the U.S. kinda like many other countries. They did it from the beggining then we would have no problem. the Japanese do this and look at them. Strong national pride in products they produce. Strong home grown product buying and the willingness to expand that base with companies that have the green light like here in the U.S..
The U.S. exact opposite?? Why is that?? Strong national pride in products we produce?? Nope we go for something else. Strong home grown buying? Nope we buy from anywhere anyone and anything. Strong product buying from companies that want to expand? Nope again we buy whatever we want cus were Americans and thats fine with us. Till like mentioned thes mistakes that could of been prevented pop up and the riot act is read and guess what..It is too late..and it is..unless there is a huge "Made in the U.S.A." movement in the next 10 years..there will be a very large hole to fill that was the big 2.5...

sad but true..