Latest on the UAW Bailout

ViragoBry · Dec 17, 2008

The real question is what are the CEO's risks? He has none. He may run the company into the ground, but that isn't his burden to bear as he walks away with his bag of money. The CEO is the guiding hand of the company. He is compensated handsomely for shouldering the responsibility, reaps the rewards when the company does well and isn't affected by his failures. There's something to be said for inserting a performance clause into his contract, since performance evaluations take place regularly at the bottom of the food chain. You fail at your job on the assembly line and you're history. You fail as CEO and the worst you can expect is a huge severance.

badtlc · Dec 17, 2008

Originally Posted By: ViragoBry

The real question is what are the CEO's risks? He has none. He may run the company into the ground, but that isn't his burden to bear as he walks away with his bag of money. The CEO is the guiding hand of the company. He is compensated handsomely for shouldering the responsibility, reaps the rewards when the company does well and isn't affected by his failures. There's something to be said for inserting a performance clause into his contract, since performance evaluations take place regularly at the bottom of the food chain. You fail at your job on the assembly line and you're history. You fail as CEO and the worst you can expect is a huge severance.

If that is what you really think, then I don't think there is anything I can say that would change your mind. You seem to have a very short-sighted stance or even jaded for that matter.

ViragoBry · Dec 17, 2008

And how do you suppose one gets jaded? It's called past experience working under a very bad CEO who seemed incapable of good decision making, and near the end....it was all about HIM. Wagoner's (and the rest of the execs) stance on this situation became very clear to me when they showed up in D.C. with their hands out, and NO plan in place to make the money work long-term. If you think anything I'm saying is false, just sit back and watch. Eventually Wagoner will submit his resignation, or be forced out and in either case, he leaves with his pockets full.

badtlc · Dec 18, 2008

Originally Posted By: ViragoBry

And how do you suppose one gets jaded? It's called past experience working under a very bad CEO who seemed incapable of good decision making, and near the end....it was all about HIM. Wagoner's (and the rest of the execs) stance on this situation became very clear to me when they showed up in D.C. with their hands out, and NO plan in place to make the money work long-term. If you think anything I'm saying is false, just sit back and watch. Eventually Wagoner will submit his resignation, or be forced out and in either case, he leaves with his pockets full.

Didn't Ford just back out from requesting Government bailout money?

mrsilv04 · Dec 18, 2008

Chrysler is going to close all 30 plants for the month of January, in an attempt to keep inventory at a level to match demand. UAW members will still get 95% (ninety-five percent) of their pay, even though they will get the entire month off. And folks wonder why most taxpayers are opposed to the government bailout of the domestic automakers? With a contract agreement like that, they need to file for Chapter 11.

Kestas · Dec 18, 2008

Ford is asking for a line of credit in case they need it.

Steve S · Dec 18, 2008

Originally Posted By: badtlc

Originally Posted By: ViragoBry

The real question is what are the CEO's risks? He has none. He may run the company into the ground, but that isn't his burden to bear as he walks away with his bag of money. The CEO is the guiding hand of the company. He is compensated handsomely for shouldering the responsibility, reaps the rewards when the company does well and isn't affected by his failures. There's something to be said for inserting a performance clause into his contract, since performance evaluations take place regularly at the bottom of the food chain. You fail at your job on the assembly line and you're history. You fail as CEO and the worst you can expect is a huge severance.

If that is what you really think, then I don't think there is anything I can say that would change your mind. You seem to have a very short-sighted stance or even jaded for that matter.

it is a hard fact.

Steve S · Dec 18, 2008

Originally Posted By: badtlc

Originally Posted By: Steve S

If the CEOs get millions of dollars in compensation why can't the workers get a measly $150,000$ My opinion G.M. Mt experience with G.M products has been real poor so I wouldn't buy one and it is not because of stuff the employees didn't put together correctly.

Because simple workers don't make real decisions. With higher pay comes more risk. If every decision a worker makes can make or brake a billion dollar company, they should be compensated accordingly. Likewise, if the decisions that worker makes literally has no effect on the business as a whole, they should be compensated accordingly. No one has a "right" to make that much money. It should be earned. Typically, earning that means taking a much bigger risk. What risk is a line worker taking?

What risk does the CEO take? He makes millions a year, and can run the corp into bankrupcy and walk away with a golden parachute that most of us could live a lifetime on. ?What risk does the CEO have? Lose his corp jet?m His limo?

Steve S · Dec 18, 2008

Originally Posted By: cousincletus

It's just the race to the bottom mentality that will eventually kill the middle class in this country as we know it. When it's all done, we will look back on it and wonder why did we let this happen. Don't kid yourselves, there will never be a shortage of cheap labor, and we have to protect American jobs, high wages and do something about all this "free trade". The USA has been a dumping ground for cheap foreign products too long. I'm surprised so many on this forum just don't get it.

The unions for those who do not know is what allowed the middle class .

Tempest · Dec 18, 2008

Originally Posted By: Steve S

Originally Posted By: cousincletus

It's just the race to the bottom mentality that will eventually kill the middle class in this country as we know it. When it's all done, we will look back on it and wonder why did we let this happen. Don't kid yourselves, there will never be a shortage of cheap labor, and we have to protect American jobs, high wages and do something about all this "free trade". The USA has been a dumping ground for cheap foreign products too long. I'm surprised so many on this forum just don't get it.

The unions for those who do not know is what allowed the middle class .

Unions have become the very thing they were set up to defeat. They aren't for the worker, they are for the people at the top. They are businesses just like any other.

calvin1 · Dec 18, 2008

Originally Posted By: Tempest

Unions have become the very thing they were set up to defeat. They aren't for the worker, they are for the people at the top. They are businesses just like any other.

And ironically not very good at the business they've chosen - selling labor. Pretend that instead of selling people's work the UAW sold tires. Would you as a corporation by tires from them? If people had the same opinion of Goodyear as they do of the UAW they would have been dead and buried long ago. How about their business metrics. Sure they are getting a lot for their product, but every day they sell less and less of it. From just about any angle the UAW isn't doing a good job of selling or marketing its product. Fundamentally any UAW member's wage is based on how much HARM he DOESN'T do to his employer. Wouldn't it be better to be paid based on how much GOOD you DO? I don't make what a line worker makes and never have but I'm proud of my salary because it's based on what my employer thinks I'm worth. calvin

Tempest · Dec 18, 2008

Quote:

How about their business metrics. Sure they are getting a lot for their product, but every day they sell less and less of it.

GOOD POINT!

Gary Allan · Dec 18, 2008

Quote:

Fundamentally any UAW member's wage is based on how much HARM he DOESN'T do to his employer. Wouldn't it be better to be paid based on how much GOOD you DO?

I need you to expand this concept just a bit here. I've never seen a more productive assembly line than we have today. I think too many cling to the Vietnam era junk that was produced and think that union is equated to lazy. Those people that are idle want to work. They're all sweating bullets hoping to come out of this with a life. If you cut out all the idled workers (and admit your 100% ignorance that this element in UAW contracts was a MANAGEMENT INITIATED aspect to UAW contracts - please ..just one of you have the apparent honesty to make this concession - if for nothing more to bolster your HONEST evaluation of the situation) I doubt that there could be a more efficient assembly process with humans. The whole process is wrapped around putting out as many units as possible in the shortest amount of time. Why do you think the oil cooler on a Crown Vic has o rings with special fittings that are held by a one fastener metal plate? It's so the assembly line worker can push in the hoses and "zip!" .. Well, in some sorta concession of my own in trying to convince others that are already convinced otherwise, why do you think that you have any benefits that are now in retreat? That is, who made medical benefits and pensions ..and all the laundry list of things that you enjoy today, possible? I've been on both sides of this experience. I've never needed a union for my personal skill sets in terms of employment. I'd also be a total LIAR if I didn't say that any benefits that I had ..and are now struggling to afford, are 100% byproducts of organized labor. Those who are totally slanted against the UAW appear to be missing one or two selling points. While the reason for the demise of the big 3 can be traced to legacy costs ..(and I'll grant you your dispensation that you give "The League of Distinguished Gentlemen for their greed and incompetence that their noble station entitles them to)...... ..what you offer is the future concession to "worse" for the American lifestyle. You WANT to devalue the middle class. This is the selling feature that you leave out. You cite "more competitive" ...this and that. I DON'T WANT TO COMPETE WITH "LESS". I don't want my $12/hour workers competing with $2/day workers. I don't want the conditions that lower cost of doing business entities are subjected to HERE. This is the untidy "unannounced consequence" of your campaign banner. Sell the middle class down the river ....for the betterment of (who?

) WE CAN'T AFFORD THEM. Sucks to be them

That about it??

Tempest · Dec 18, 2008

Quote:

and admit your 100% ignorance that this element in UAW contracts was a MANAGEMENT INITIATED aspect to UAW contracts - please ..just one of you have the apparent honesty to make this concession

As soon as you can provide some documentation to support the assertion.

Quote:

That is, who made medical benefits and pensions ..and all the laundry list of things that you enjoy today, possible?

The labor price controls of WWII.

Quote:

I DON'T WANT TO COMPETE WITH "LESS". I don't want my $12/hour workers competing with $2/day workers. I don't want the conditions that lower cost of doing business entities are subjected to HERE.

This is why we NEED productivity. Without this, we cannot compete. You continue to believe that if one side gains, the other side HAS to loose. This not a correct model. It is perfectly possible to raise the entire base. If it were not possible, the standard of living in this country as well as other industrialized nations would not be what it is today. Zero sum game it is not.

xlt4me · Dec 18, 2008

Originally Posted By: Tempest

Originally Posted By: Steve S

Originally Posted By: cousincletus

It's just the race to the bottom mentality that will eventually kill the middle class in this country as we know it. When it's all done, we will look back on it and wonder why did we let this happen. Don't kid yourselves, there will never be a shortage of cheap labor, and we have to protect American jobs, high wages and do something about all this "free trade". The USA has been a dumping ground for cheap foreign products too long. I'm surprised so many on this forum just don't get it.

The unions for those who do not know is what allowed the middle class .

Unions have become the very thing they were set up to defeat. They aren't for the worker, they are for the people at the top. They are businesses just like any other.

I'm not sure how much first hand union experience all the union haters have but I'll tell you why I'm glad I'm in a union. I have a non-exempt salary, union represented job. Before we went in the union, (it was by vote nobody forced us), we had the same benefit package as the exempt salary work force. At least twice over the years the union approached us about joining and was voted down by at least a 90% margin. I was one one of those who voted against it. There was simply no need for it. We had good pay and benefits as it was. THEN around 1999/2000 the company took away the defined benefit pension. In it's place they substituted a Personal Retirement Account -- PRA. The initial amount placed in the account was based on some vodo formula that took into account your age, years of service, phase of the moon, yada-yada. Anyway, I was five years away from a vested pension that would have been worth over $20k / year. Now lets assume they would have felt sorry for their evil ways and bumped that $60k up to $100k over the next five years. At best a 7% annuity would get me $7k a year. Hummm, lets see we had an agreement where I would get >$20k but you just decided to cut us off at the knees.... Hmmmm. Ok so now the union comes back to us and says would you like to join the union now? This time the vote was about 98% in favor of joining the union -- me included. Now how many of you union haters would have voted against joining the union under those circumstances?

dkryan · Dec 18, 2008

xlt4me: Did the union manage to restore your defined benefit pension? Do you receive better pay now than had you remained non-unionized? Better benefits?

Gary Allan · Dec 19, 2008

Originally Posted By: dkryan

xlt4me: Did the union manage to restore your defined benefit pension? Do you receive better pay now than had you remained non-unionized? Better benefits?

That suggests that one has to regain what one had. How about not losing any more?? We offered to take any concession that the management took in total compensation. That is, whatever the management gained in salary and benefits (including deferred compensation) we would agree to accept that across the board. They weren't interested.

xlt4me · Dec 19, 2008

Originally Posted By: dkryan

xlt4me: Did the union manage to restore your defined benefit pension? Do you receive better pay now than had you remained non-unionized? Better benefits?

Our contract for the non-exempts became a separate division of the Basic Labor Agreement -- BLA. Our health care and pension are the same as the BLA but we have separate salary grades from their labor grades. We also retained most salary benefits i.e. we are still paid for sick days and personal days off. The pension is not as good as the old salary plan but everybody lost that and the union plan is a whole lot better than a lump sum of $60k after 25yrs. Since then the exempt salary workers also lost retirement health care and have had few pay raises since then. One of the best things about the contract is that it defines how promotions are earned. It's based on time in grade and completing defined courses at a local college. At the age of 50, I had to go back to school and take seven classes but I did get to the elusive top salary grade which used to be pretty much a dangling carrot before the contract.

1sttruck · Dec 19, 2008

Management is resposnible for negotiating labor contracts, product development, product line, marketing, pricing, supply chain, product quality and reliability, etc., pretty much every first order effect that the industry is experiencing right now, but it's still fashionable to blame the workers. With the loss of company pensions and benefits we've seen one of the largest transfers of wealth in recent business history, gee, where did all of that money go, but working class types are asking for more. Keep poking yourselves with those sharp sticks, it's just plain entertaining after awhile.

calvin1 · Dec 19, 2008

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan

Quote:

Fundamentally any UAW member's wage is based on how much HARM he DOESN'T do to his employer. Wouldn't it be better to be paid based on how much GOOD you DO?

I need you to expand this concept just a bit here. I've never seen a more productive assembly line than we have today. I think too many cling to the Vietnam era junk that was produced and think that union is equated to lazy. Those people that are idle want to work. They're all sweating bullets hoping to come out of this with a life.

Give me what I want or the boys don't work. Give me what I want or the boys block the gates. Give me what I want or the boys will trip the line every time you restart it. Give me what I want or the boys will support your political opponents. Give me what I want or my friend over at the teamsters will tell his boys not to move your stuff. Give me what I want or I'll be a pain in your rear until you give in. - Ron Middlefinger If you are so confident in the quality and value of your labor then tear up the contracts and let the market decide what really is a "prevailing" wage. The UAW has sold its members up the river. Ron Middlefinger sure doesn't need to worry about his family's Christmas any more than Rick Wagoner or Bob Nardelli. calvin