|
This is why unions are gay aka at least there will be no bailout. (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pmoisse |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
i'm not sure the chrysler loan in the 80s should be called a bailout. Apparently the government made money on thet deal because Chrysler paid back everything plus interest. |
Very true, Chrysler paid back over 1 billion I think. But what did they learn from it? They missed the boat when the market started to change in the early 2000's when fuel prices were rising consistently. Any one of these 3 companies could have been ahead of the curve but instead chose to take excess profits on unsustainable products with disregard to future development.
My point is that this is history repeating itself. Carmaker makes ty cars but is too big to die...gets rescued somehow...keeps making ...manages to make some money for a while....pisses it away and comes hat in hand again.
As I said in the PDD thread, I think that the damage for all 3 to fail would be too huge to allow to happen. Any gov't bailout should come with severe re-structuring plans and cuts to avoid the taxpayer being left to hold the bag if it doesn't work.
The big 3 have been on a make-work project for too damn long, surviving mostly on fleet sales to rental agencies, government fleets and corporate leases. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Stasis
Secondly, how can you be so short-sighted? Unions have outlived their utility?? I can't believe what I'm hearing. Look dudes, we don't have to hypothesize about what a union-free market looks like. We literally lived through one in the late 1800s and early 1900s. You get robber barons, company towns and the inevitable race for the bottom of the pay scale. That sort of unrestrained capitalism was as much as failure as socialism. |
times have changed. Back in those days the labor market wasn't as fluid. Access to higher education wasn't as open to everyone. People took the job they could find. A company could easily find someone else to fill that position. With a high-tech economy there are so many different skills sets necessary for various positions that some positions aren't easily filled. This gives workers a distinct advantage over the employers. This is why lawyers, doctors, IT workers, etc... make bank without unionization. The market determines the salaries of these people without coersion. If the market rate for an unskilled (and yes, people working a machine at an auto factory are relatively unskilled) manufacturing laborers is not sufficient, that person has the ability to improve their skill set to find a job more compatible with their salary requirements. I'm sure there are hundreds of thousands of mexicans who could easily perform the duties of UAW workers for less than half the price, and they would jump through any hoop for that job. Why is it we have to protect people who don't want to do anything to increase their skills? Unions today are a way for workers to become complacent, not to protect their rights. |
|
|
| zoogla |
big 3 should become 100% nationalized. no stock, ceo should be a govt employee.
lol then, if digruntled union workers try to block a federal building (i.e. the factory) call in the national guard :disbelief |
|
|
| Omega_Blue |
haha, i support unions when it's obvious they're needed, i.e. workers getting ed over in pay, being asked to increase workload to the point of possible physical injury, working with hazardous materials, etc etc. sometimes they're needed. most of the time they're not. GM being one example. so as i said, don't agree with the bailout, but at the same time don't want to see my dad get ed over. who knows if retired employees are even included in the bailout anyways, i dunno.
i think what some people don't understand is the major benefit of working an office job (as it is to my understanding that most postere here do) is not having to worry about major safety hazards in the workplace. sometimes union intervention is necessary when the worker's well-being is in danger. |
|
|
| pmoisse |
| quote: | | Originally posted by Omega_Blue is not having to worry about major safety hazards in the workplace. sometimes union intervention is necessary when the worker's well-being is in danger. |
how much money do the Big 3 spend on healthcare compared to foreign car makers building cars within the US in non-union shops?
So much of the cost of a GM car is health plan.
I agree that it used to be necessary and in most cases, auto and heavy industry was the trend-setter for better employee rights all over the spectrum of the workforce.
Now, I think it has bred a lazy attitude of entitlement. |
|
|
| Omega_Blue |
| quote: | Originally posted by pmoisse
how much money do the Big 3 spend on healthcare compared to foreign car makers building cars within the US in non-union shops?
|
dunno, i've never worked for toyota. haha |
|
|
| The17sss |
| GM and Toyota sold roughly the same number of vehicles over the last year, but Toyota turned a $1.7 billion profit while GM lost around $9 billion. That doesn't happen by accident. Until these automakers and their unions resolve the structural problems that creates this kind of unprofitability, they are a terrible credit risk and a lousy investment... and neither management nor labor shows much willingness to change for the taxpayer subsidies they now demand. What fags. |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by Omega_Blue
ridiculous wages for a mimimum amount of work. I'm talkin, $30+ an hour for skilled labor, with a production rate so low that you could literally leave the plant for half the day after you hit rate, come back, punch out, and go home. double time on fridays, triple time on sundays/holidays. plus excellent insurance and a pension plan.. you don't see that often in factory jobs like that. they took care of their employees but the current situation is a ing disaster. |
Exactly why the big 3 are companies from a fiscal standpoint. Horrendous quality, stale products, little to no investment in alternatives to the SUV, and very little interest in anything remotely relevant to the future of the company.
| quote: | Originally posted by Stasis
Whoa, what's with all the anti-union nonsense?
Anyone who thinks autoworkers in the big 3 are overpaid compared to their non-unionized counterparts in Honda/Toyota/Nissan factories is just ill-informed:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/b...onhardt.html?em
Secondly, how can you be so short-sighted? Unions have outlived their utility?? I can't believe what I'm hearing. Look dudes, we don't have to hypothesize about what a union-free market looks like. We literally lived through one in the late 1800s and early 1900s. You get robber barons, company towns and the inevitable race for the bottom of the pay scale. That sort of unrestrained capitalism was as much as failure as socialism. |
You failed at trying to debunk the wage mystery. Why? The NYT article clearly states that the current cost to Ford for wages is averaging $22/hr per employee higher than the Japanese makes. That is HUGE. When you have a work force of 100,000, that is 2.2 million per hour worked each day that they are paying higher than the Japanese. Go and run along now.
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
i'm not sure the chrysler loan in the 80s should be called a bailout. Apparently the government made money on thet deal because Chrysler paid back everything plus interest. |
Whether they made money or not, they still bailed them out. Monetary compensation beyond what they loaned them is just a perk. |
|
|
| Audious |
| quote: | Originally posted by XaNaX
just for you bas
 |
Pegasus. |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
GM and Toyota sold roughly the same number of vehicles over the last year, but Toyota turned a $1.7 billion profit while GM lost around $9 billion. That doesn't happen by accident. Until these automakers and their unions resolve the structural problems that creates this kind of unprofitability, they are a terrible credit risk and a lousy investment... and neither management nor labor shows much willingness to change for the taxpayer subsidies they now demand. What fags. |
The CEOs weren't ever going to offer to take a $1/yr salary until they needed the bailout. And even then, they almost didn't offer to take that. Only if they get the bailout will they take a salary of $1/yr. |
|
|
| zoogla |
| quote: | Originally posted by gehzumteufel
Go and run along now. |
:stongue: :stongue: |
|
|
| zoogla |
| quote: | Originally posted by gehzumteufel
The CEOs weren't ever going to offer to take a $1/yr salary until they needed the bailout. And even then, they almost didn't offer to take that. Only if they get the bailout will they take a salary of $1/yr. |
lol what was their actual salary? $200K-300K? It's their bonus that would've been the meat, and it doesn't seem like there's gonna be a major reduction there... |
|
|
|
|
