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)
16701 messages, Last post on Nov 20, 2009 at 3:39 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
If you have a country subsidizing an industry and therefore stealing jobs/work from the more efficient industry, your [sic] not doing the consumer any favors either. As we speak folks out there are playing with the supply and demand for all sorts of goods and services. Laissez faire has become an abstract at best. Sorry, DD, but this doesn't make sense. You're dancing around the fact that tariffs derive whatever effectiveness they have by punishing customers for making what tariff supporters consider to be wrong choices. You're also ignoring the fact that an industry protected from outside competition by tariffs has less incentive to make the investments & changes needed to stay competitive. In the long run, tariffs hurt more than they help. And even if you believe that tariffs help domestic manufacturers at the low end of the market, where customer choices are largely price-driven, you have to explain how they'll change outcomes at the upper end. If an affluent customer has decided that he'd rather drive an $80K 7-series BMW than a $60K Cadillac STS, how will a tariff change his mind?
|
|
|
Replying to: jimbres (Dec 29, 2008 8:37 am) Or in my case, a BMW X5 35d built in America by non Union labor vs a Domestic built by the UAW. Plus the Domestics do not offer me a diesel SUV. Seems that is the problem most of the time the Domestics more and more are not offering what the American consumer wants to buy. I cannot think of a single vehicle built here by UAW labor that would tempt me at 40% below MSRP. That is just what many are selling for today. GM cannot continue to bleed red ink even with US printing money as fast as they waste it. PS I take that back. A Corvette at 40% discount would be a big temptation. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: dallasdude1 (Dec 28, 2008 10:48 pm) Cannot exercise the stock options since they are upside down and worthless at this time. What is the deferred compensation that GM execs have? Sure would like to know what that is. And what do you think the Golden Parachute is for GM execs? |
|
|
|
|
Its been there for decades. http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/12/29/nothings_too_good_for_the_work/i- ndex.php
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: 62vetteefp (Dec 29, 2008 8:52 am) Generally true, depends on their structure. Many of the early Microsoft employees got stock in the form of compensation. Later on they did well. Most companies, offer stock at this days price (a year period) in the hopes that actions by that person will make the stock worth more. Hence, if it worth more later, he or she would buy all they could get/allowed/agreed to, even borrow to buy, and follow with SEC filing of the intention to sell, if required to do so. What is the deferred compensation that GM execs have? Its a package deal, a contract/covenant. It might have guaranteed and performance based items. It more than likely would be structured to minimize taxes. However, these are heirs to fortunates and more than likely would rather take it in the form of trusts for their family members. Each case is different and needs to be looked into. Generally speaking the amount is agreed upon and accountants, lawyers, economist, and other experts look to get the most out it. I've been party to many of these and your looking at about three days of work, by different disciplines, in structuring this compensation package. UAW does this same thing for their membership, but as a group. Here is the money, now divide it up as you see fitting. Don't leave any money on the table and be sure that your getting the full pot of beans/money. On most contracts an expert from benefits comes in days or weeks prior to negotiations to hammer out details. The internationals representative, who do this all the time are there to advise the chairman of the negotiating committee. Smaller details are addressed by committee people. And what do you think the Golden Parachute is for GM execs? These are golden parachutes by the nature that the concern may not be doing well and all the while they have obligations they incurred during better times. Unless you have some interest into going into money planning. I don't understand your wanting to know the manner of compensation. I find that most folks lack the skills to do their own planning. |
|
|
Replying to: dallasdude1 (Dec 29, 2008 9:11 am) It is obvious that the training was not aimed at making the Domestic Auto Industry viable. While I have no problem with such a facility and think that training is vital. I wonder just how useful the training was to better perform your job? For those with a sense of progressive history, an earlier version was at Port Huron. Back in 1962, a bunch of young left activists came together at the UAW's summer camp at Port Huron and penned what became known as the Port Huron Statement, the manifesto of what would become Students for a Democratic Society and much of the early New Left in the 1960s. It looks as though I would be opposed to the training given at the UAW center. As I believe that kind of thinking is what is wrong with America today. |
|
|
Replying to: dallasdude1 (Dec 28, 2008 8:52 pm) Agree with much of what you say. However, the need for capital and loans *is* value added and greases the entire economy. Problem is that most of the other stuff in the financial industry is smoke and mirrors that add no value. But the fundamental workings of a banking system (that could collapse due to the other crap) are critical to our entire society - more so than Circuit City, Mervyn's, or the D3. So a case can be made that the bailout of the banking industry is more important than other companies and industries. I just wish they'd put the heads of these financial institutions on trial, and make some massive regulatory reform. I thought Sarbanes-Oxley was supposed to prevent misstatements of financial conditions in a company? |
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Dec 29, 2008 6:33 am) Excellent statement. The UAW and GM want it all, but that isn't going to happen. Which item is going to give? They should decide or the market will decide it for them. |
|
|
Replying to: dallasdude1 (Dec 29, 2008 8:24 am) LOL! Back to UAW, we speak of tariffs. In the 1980's we imposed voluntary import quotas on the Japanese. But the buying public still wanted the cars. So the J3 upped the size and content of their cars since they could not import more units. This opened up the market of larger more expensive vehicles to the J3. Not the effect that anybody (including UAW) intended. This was an example of where a protectionist attempt backfired on the D3. The best competition would be outstanding products that the consumers want to buy. |
|
|
Replying to: 62vetteefp (Dec 29, 2008 8:52 am) We don't know since they same characters have been in charge for so many years. Perhaps we should find out? I'll nominate Wagoner!
|
|
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
