Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views United Automobile Workers of America (UAW)
16656 messages, Last post on Nov 08, 2009 at 10:40 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: marsha7 (Dec 27, 2008 6:13 pm) AIG, Sept. 17, 2008: $85 billion guaranteed by the Federal Reserve. Bear Stearns, Mar. 16, 2008: $29 billion guaranteed by the Federal Reserve MBIA, Dec. 10, 2007: $1 billion from private equity fund Warburg Pincus UBS, Dec. 10, 2007: $11.5 billion from Singapore’s sovereign wealth fund, along with an unnamed Middle Eastern investor E*Trade Financial, Nov. 29, 2007: $2.55 billion from Citadel Investment Group Citigroup, Nov. 26, 2007: $7.5 billion from Abu Dhabi’s sovereign wealth fund Countrywide Financial, Aug. 22, 2007: $2 billion from Bank of America Goldman Sachs Hedge Fund, Aug. 13, 2007: $3 billion from Goldman Sachs and investors including C.V. Starr & Co. and Eli Broad U.S. Domestic Airlines, September 2001: $15 billion from the U.S. government Russia, 1998: $17 billion in loans from the International Monetary Fund Long Term Capital Management, 1998: $3.6 billion from various Wall Street firms Apple, August 1997: $150 million from rival Microsoft (beat Sony Walkman with an IPOD senseless) Mexico, 1995: $50 billion in loans ($20 billion from the U.S. and more than $30 billion from the International Monetary Fund, Europe, private banks, and other trading partners) Salomon Brothers, 1987: $700 million from Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway Various U.S. Savings and Loans, 1986-1995: $124 billion from the FDIC Continental Illinois, 1984: $1 billion in capital from the FDIC, which also guaranteed the bank’s $30 billion in uninsured deposits and assumed $3.5 billion of the company’s debt Chrysler, January 1980: $1.5 billion in loans from the U.S. government City of New York, 1975: $150 million from the New York City Teachers’ Union plus refinancing $3 billion of its debt Lockheed Aircraft, 1971: $250 million in loan guarantees from Congress New York City Trusts, 1907: $50 million ($30 million from John Pierpont Morgan, along with other bankers and $25 million from the U.S. Treasury) So whats Apples market share of the MP3 player market? |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: tlong (Dec 27, 2008 8:40 pm) As head of one of the nation’s most powerful unions, Gettelfinger doesn’t earn nearly as much as Detroit’s top CEOs. GM’s Rick Wagoner, for example, made more than $14 million last year. But Gettelfinger’s total compensation of nearly $160,000 annually far exceeds the U.S. median gross family income of $61,500 and puts him among the top five percent of all tax filers, according to U.S. Census Bureau and IRS data. And the UAW is anything but poor, with net assets reportedly worth an estimated $1.23 billion. UAW membership has been declining for years, as it has for most major unions, but annual income from member dues, interest and other revenues exceeded $300 million in 2006. Lets seperate the winners from the losers please.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Dec 27, 2008 11:00 am) The Walter and May Reuther Family Education Center The course is open to all UAW members and retirees, as well as the public on a space-available basis. A fervent naturalist, Reuther personally tagged nearly every tree on the property. Not one was taken down without his permission. http://www.blacklakegolf.com/family-education-center-24/
|
|
|
Replying to: dallasdude1 (Dec 27, 2008 10:36 pm) The UAW lost $23 million on it in the past five years. I wouldn't want my union dues going to pay for that. But I don't golf. 
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Dec 27, 2008 5:06 pm) Lets see if I'm getting this right? They used your money to build that? Then you can use it?
|
|
|
Replying to: dallasdude1 (Dec 27, 2008 11:17 pm) If I'm a Ford shareholder, I don't see a lot of benefit for all the exec perks they get either. Something like the Henry Ford Museum is cool, but that's not supported by the shareholders. I doubt that Mulally went to Ford because they bought him a country club membership. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Dec 27, 2008 10:54 pm) It is funded from interest on the UAW strike fund. |
|
|
The AMA/UAW is the union/lobby for doctors/rank and files. So they watch over the doctors/tank and files best interests. I did not see the AMA begging for money from the US government. So what is your point about them? Are you saying that the UAW has never protected a member that should have been fired? but annual income from member dues, interest and other revenues exceeded $300 million in 2006. Lets seperate the winners from the losers please. Good idea. What is their current condition? Did they generate big profits this year? Too bad they have driven the Big 3 onto the verge of bankruptcy. Lets see if I'm getting this right? They used your money to build that? Kind of a long story. The governor told the Teamsters they could not invest anymore into the state as they were gaining too much control. So they went out in the desert near Palm Springs and bought a huge tract of land. They then developed it as an investment. It has netted the Pension Fund approximately $450 million. Never was designed as a playground for the Union members. The golf course was added later on. Its a money maker by fact that its a top course. It is funded from interest on the UAW strike fund. Because it is funded from the strike fund interest it is not real money lost? A $23 million loss does not sound like a money making golf course to me. Most year round golf courses lose money in this country. They are a tax shelter for rich people. If the UAW is rich enough to own a golf course. Why are we bailing them out. That $23 million would go a long ways re-training the 1000s of UAW workers that lost jobs this month alone. Those UAW jobs are gone forever. Those people will need to learn new skills. It is the UAW's responsibility, not GM's or the US tax payer's responsibility. Good to see you have your priorities in line.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Dec 28, 2008 6:10 am) Lobby's and special interest cost the consumer more. Just as when the govt pays farmers to not grow and or to grow certain crops. We pay at the store. Supply of any certain service or item is rationed by price. So therefore, less people in the medical profession means, higher cost at doctors office. You certainly don't think that these big lobbies spend millions on public relations? Giant pharmaceuticals go to Washington to protect their members special interest. Hence, when you go to the drug store you pay more than if they were absent in a capitalist system. I say let the markets decide and put an end to all these groups who seek to enrich their members. Begging/bribing they are. Implicitly or explicitly they seek special treatment outside the supply and demand structure. At the least you must consider Medicare and Medicaid money taxpayer funds. These people are not stupid and they are getting their moneys worth and then more. Such is a day in the life of one of 17,800 registered Washington lobbyists upon whom interest groups spent $1.56 billion last year to sway Congress and the executive branch — numbers that are grossly understated due to the narrow definition of "registered lobbyist," says Jeffrey Birnbaum, author of The Lobbyists: How Influence Peddlers Get Their Way in Washington. An estimated 40 percent of those 17,800 lobbyists promote health care agendas, according to James Albertine, president of the Alexandria, Va.-based American League of Lobbyists. To put it another way, there are 13 health care lobbyists for each of the 535 members of Congress. Among their most passionate causes this year are Medicare reimbursements and tort reform. Hundreds of medical groups have a lobbying presence in Washington. The AMA — the third-largest lobbying group (based on expenditures) — spent about $17 million in 2000, the latest year for which figures are available. Collectively, health care groups spent $209 million in 2000 to gain passage of bills that benefit their members or to sideline legislation that might harm them. That places health care interests third in lobbying expenditures, behind power brokers for finance, insurance, and real estate, who spent $229 million, and manufacturers and retailers, who invested $224 million in their work. http://www.managedcaremag.com/archives/0208/0208.lobbying.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/15/AR2006021502351.- html Because it is funded from the strike fund interest it is not real money lost? Its absolutely real money and belongs to the membership. It has nothing to do with the Big Three funds and or anyone else's funds. The UAW membership elects on how to spend their money and not FAUX NEWS. Certainly you don't let the Teamsters tell you how to spend your money. Above and beyond my union dues, I have elected to fund CAP within the UAW to represent my interests in Washington. I did so of self interest and of my own free will. The AIG scandal will go down in history of how a few high level executives enjoying the spoils of taxpayer funding and the UAW rank and file membership has equal access to their resort paid by UAW money.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views United Automobile Workers of America (UAW)
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
