Regardless of what one thinks of the UAW and its part in Detroit's problems; I would suggest that holding a press conference to effectively thumb his nose at the public is not a wise move.


Link: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...yb39wD94FH2IO0

 

I happen to agree with him for the most part...but you're right, that's not a smart move at all. I would've kept it in congress during the 'hearings'.

 

Talk about out of touch........

 

Rick "Bankruptcy is not an option!" Wagoner and Ron "No more concessions!" Gettlefinger deserve each other. I'm sure they'll get plenty of time to chat while standing in the unemployment line together.

 

And the union bashing continues. I guess pathalogical impulses trump facts:

Consider:

1. New UAW hires come in at the same pay rate as non union members at Toyota, Honda, etc... at non union plants.

2. The UAW gave up non-manufacturing jobs, allowing the big 3 automakers to hire non-union people at around $14 per hour or less.

3. GM no longer has the pension system for new hires.

4. The UAW has taken sizeable pay cuts.

5. The UAW has taken over retirees health care costs. They have a huge portion now, and will completely take it over in 2010.

6. Car makers can now clear out their "Job Banks". Those in the "Banks" now must either accept an offered job (even if it's out of their area), accept a buyout, use job placement, or they're out.


Gettelfinger, despite how he came across, is rightful in saying that the UAW isn't going to make any more concessions because they shouldn't. It's up to the automakers to do their fair share to turn things around. The labor costs going into a new vehicle is now under 10% and will drop to about 8% when the final part of UAW concessions kick in.

Canada, which not too long ago was a much cheaper place to make automobiles than the US, is now far more expensive. UAW concessions have also blunted Mexico's cost advantage, and has all but eliminated plans for new factories. A new factory in Mexico typically calls for each manufacturer to also build it's own local infrastructure and utilities, along with sizable payments to local and central government in Mexico. It's now more cost adventageous to use an existing factory here in the US.

I know that there are plenty of people stuck in the 90s with the UAW. I was a pretty rabid anti-UAW person myself when I joined this site (the '98 strike was still fresh on my mind). Since then, they have turned around 180 degrees, and I have no problem giving them a break.

 

Trust me - I'm not bashing the union. I come from a blue-collar family, and I want to see American workers be able to put food on their table.

That being said, Ron's a moron to be making proclamations like this. There are workers in the auto industry that make much less than even a lower-tier UAW employee, and so some folks that are making $8-9/hour are probably going to be standing in the unemployment line and visiting food banks as this whole mess unravels. For Ron to be complaining about his troops is understandable, but also incredibly insensitive and damaging to his cause.

North America has the capacity to make perhaps 15M (or more) cars every year. Current assumptions right now for 2009 is that we'll probably build somewhere around 11.5-12M cars here next year, and that number goes down every time it's revised. Simply put, consumers can't afford to buy enough vehicles to keep all of the factories chugging along at full capacity. That's going to mean Bad Things for the folks that work in those factories. There isn't much way around this.

Now, I certainly don't think that the UAW should be asked to take another pay or benefits cut. They were told at the close of the last round of negotiations that there was a competitive contract in place, and asking for any additional cuts is going to be like squeezing blood from a stone. But Ron has to understand that there are better ways to communicate this than the old 60s/70s style of bluster.

 

It takes more than a few years of concessions to erase decades of abule and holding GM and the other automakers hostage. The union is going to be stubborn all the way to the bitter end.

 

i think the biggest issue here is that this was a very dumb PR move.

meet the press this morning discussed the auto issue and this was brought up as an example of how the union is dragging GM down, announcing "no more concessions."

very bad PR move

 

so, what would happen to the UAW if GM doesn't make it?

 

The current employees would see their contracts dissolved. Assuming that GM wanted to stay operational through Chapter 11, you'd see some very tough negotiations, with both sides making unreasonable requests (the Delphi filing provides the blueprint for this). Retiree benefits would be negotiated; much of this would depend on the current health of GM's pension fund (which has definitely see-sawed throughout the past decade).

If a Chapter 7 filing occurs, then it'd be just like GM never existed. The employees would be on the street with nothing but their government unemployment checks and whatever health care they could scrounge via the social safety net. Retirees would likely see all of their benefits (pension and health care) disappear instantly, just as we saw happen during the various steel mill liquidations here in the Midwest several years ago.

It would be wise for the UAW to act in a manner that doesn't kill its host. This was a lesson that should have been demonstrated in graphic detail over the past eight years. We'll see if Ron "gets it" or not.

 

I wasn't bashing the union with my posting this and while one or two may be; I don't think that's the point of the majority of the posts here.

The point being that...
1. Gettelfinger should shut-up...if he wants to draw lines in the sand he needs to do so with the doors shut.

2. NO company (be it GM , AGI, or anyone else) should be (or have been) given one cent of taxpayer money unless the whole dam company, from the night watchman to the CEO, is willing to make whatever sacrifices are necessary to ensure that the taxpayer money does the job intended. If that means the UAW has to take additional cuts or that the contract provisions come into play earlier, etc...then that's what has to happen.

 

Eric and Robert have summed it up nicely in my opinion

 

Gettelfinger is talking about the healthcare VEBA. And that does have to go. The UAW should get the same coverage as GM's retired white collar employees who do not get the same blank check coverage.

Well now that I think about it - the white collar retirees do not get coverage after the first of the year if I remember correctly.

 

and i believe the UAW should get no concessions.


but the union did this and that..... boo hoo

 

OK, my PERSONAL opinion is that any consideration be based on financial viability contained within any request for a loan.

The important thing is that the taxpayers get paid back. Anything which gets sidetracked by political interests should be avoided.

There shouldn't be any constituancy "sacred cows" considered in any such decision.

The agenda should be about making sure the loan has the best chance of repayment. I believe that any strings that make paying back the loan with interest in as speedy a manner possible is the key.

Whether that includes compensation concessions from labor or management seems to be fair game to me.

Any strings that will force offering vehicles people will not buy is not fair to the taxpayer.

Success is what this consideration should focus on...not agendas which benefit the few. The agenda should be about success for the whole our people.. This calls for statesmanship, from all parties.